Discussion:
Debate Corner: Evolution or Evilution?
(too old to reply)
"Mark T"
2006-04-10 10:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Debate Corner: Evolution or Evilution?

"I Aint No Monkey"
By: Travis Rhodes

Look at me. Do I look like a f*ckin' monkey to you? Do I live in a
f*ckin' tree, eat bananas and swing from vines to get from here to yonder?
I don't think so. I live in a f*ckin' trailer like a normal person and I
don't cotton to no f*ckin' bananers! Were my ancestors monkeys? No, they
were from Europe somewheres and last time I checked there weren't no damned
monkeys in Europe. My grandpa was a coal miner like his daddy before him,
and I assume my daddy wasn't no monkey or else I'd look like a damn monkey,
which I don't! I work at the Walgreens operating high-tech gizmos like
computerized cash registers and bar code readers and such that no monkey
could ever figure out in a million years. You ever see a monkey working at
Walgreens or as a coal miner? Well, maybe on the TV or in movies, but
that's
all Hollywood hogwash and clever camera tricks. In conclusion, I believe
that if evolution were for real there'd be a bunch of half men - half
monkeys running around and there aint so therefore it's a bunch of
horseshit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A Critical Analysis of the Anthropocentric Undertones of the Word
'Evolution' as Used by Humans to Describe Their Own Manifestation"

By: Koko the Chimp

I strongly object to the positive connotation attached to the term
'evolve' as it is applied to the gradual transformation over time of a
species of primate proximal to my own into modern Homo sapiens by those very
Homo sapiens themselves. The implication that such a change represents an
improvement is an arbitrary one, yet the etymological value ascribed to the
term, which is readily apparent by the way it is used in juxtaposition to
its antonym 'devolve', has been unquestioningly espoused by the very beings
who invented spoken and written language in the first place. How
convenient. You'd think these people had never heard of another term they
made up to describe this very type of thing: 'conflict of interest'. Why
doesn't Madonna just start reviewing her own albums in Rolling Stone, or the
White House begin writing its own news? And what of this insinuation that
humans are so magnificent and far superior to monkeys or chimpanzees in the
first place? Sure, I might not live in a fancy mobile home and eat greasy
cheeseburgers for lunch, but you know what else I don't do? I don't spend
over half of my waking day at some crummy job or in some crappy war staring
at a computer screen or killing members of my own species to make some
monkey higher on the vine fatter for the privilege of not starving or
freezing to death myself. No, I spend my day whacking off in a tree, and
when I get hungry I reach over and grab a 'f*ckin bananer'. THPPPPPT!











Classifieds
Lost Father - white male, early
80s. Left house for Frank
Sinatra concert at Burger King,
never returned. Last seen
wearing yellow polka dot dress,
pink sun hat. Call 785-9068.

Wal-Mart now hiring senior
citizens, the disabled to hobble
around the store improving our
public image. Some unpaid
commercial work possible.
$7.50/hr. See on-site mgr.

Horny? Have sex with ugly,
disease ridden people in your
area tonight! 1-900-IMA-LOSR
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-10 22:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this topic?

When I have posted in other topics that Almighty God could not have
used evolution I could not use 'the scientific method' of test and
retest to prove what I had stated.

Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
was no Almighty God involved.

The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living Being,
to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
central person in the history of the world.

Those who go through the Bible 'with a fine toothcomb to find
contrdictions do so to maintain their secularistic belief system.

I have looked at quite a number of topics this morning and now do not
wish to repeat that process.
In one topic the issue of the flat earth and the Bible was brought up
again.

The following websites may be of interst:-

Is the érets (earth) flat?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/flat_earth.asp

Who invented the Flat Earth?
http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Countering Critics. Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis/home/area/faq/critics.asp

If one or all of those websites do not appear on your monitor:-
enter http://answersingenesis.org and go to Search. Enter 'Flat Earth'
and you will find those articles.

Creation scientists have just as much right to be heard publically as
do the Evolutionary scientists.
Gladys Swager
"Mark T"
2006-04-11 00:16:28 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:

>Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this topic?

It would seem that Koko the Chimp with his "A Critical Analysis of the
Anthropocentric Undertones of the Word 'Evolution' as Used by Humans to
Describe Their Own Manifestation" well and truly beat Travis Rhodes and his
"I Aint No Monkey"
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-11 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
"Mark T" wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> >Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this topic?
>
> It would seem that Koko the Chimp with his "A Critical Analysis of the
> Anthropocentric Undertones of the Word 'Evolution' as Used by Humans to
> Describe Their Own Manifestation" well and truly beat Travis Rhodes and his
> "I Aint No Monkey"

It would seem to me that you are 'clutching at straws'.
It doesn't prove that Evolution occurred.

John 1 : 1 - 3
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with God
and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through Him all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has
been made.
All things were created by Him.

John 1 : 14
The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen His glory, the
glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace and
truth.
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
2006-04-11 01:30:52 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

> It would seem to me that you are 'clutching at straws'.
> It doesn't prove that Evolution occurred.
>
> John 1 : 1 - 3
> In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with
God
> and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
> Through Him all things were made, without Him nothing was made that
has
> been made.
> All things were created by Him.
>
> John 1 : 14
> The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen His glory,
the
> glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace
and
> truth.

Gladys, please explain to me how these two quotes refute evolution.

Theo
"Mark T"
2006-04-11 06:59:53 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:


>> >Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this topic?
>> It would seem that Koko the Chimp with his "A Critical Analysis of the
>> Anthropocentric Undertones of the Word 'Evolution' as Used by Humans to
>> Describe Their Own Manifestation" well and truly beat Travis Rhodes and
>> his
>> "I Aint No Monkey"
>
> It would seem to me that you are 'clutching at straws'.


De t'ings dat yo li'ble To read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
--It Ain't Necessarily So, Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
Jesus H Christ
2006-04-14 05:38:48 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
news:***@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>
> "Mark T" wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>>
>> >Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this
>> >topic?
>>
>> It would seem that Koko the Chimp with his "A Critical Analysis of
>> the Anthropocentric Undertones of the Word 'Evolution' as Used by
>> Humans to Describe Their Own Manifestation" well and truly beat
>> Travis Rhodes and his "I Aint No Monkey"
>
> It would seem to me that you are 'clutching at straws'.

It would seem to me that you totally failed to get the joke.

> It doesn't prove that Evolution occurred.

It proves that you have a deficient humour gland.


<bible rant snipped>

> Gladys Swager


JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS!
Theo Bekkers
2006-04-11 02:52:30 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
> present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
> was no Almighty God involved.

Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
told that evolution does not exclude God? In fact, most people who believe
evolution occurred, and is still occurring every day, are believers in God.
The people who look really silly in this discussion are the people who
believe the earth is 6000 years old, and who also believe that all of the
world's millions of species of animals evolved from a few "kinds" who left
Noah's boat 4000 years ago.

> Creation scientists have just as much right to be heard publically as
> do the Evolutionary scientists.

There's no such thing as a creation scientist. Name just one and point me to
their thesis on the origin of the earth and the animals who live on it. A
proper thesis on origin, not a debunking of an evolutionary work. Even I can
do that.

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-11 19:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
> > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
> > was no Almighty God involved.
>
> Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
> not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
> told that evolution does not exclude God?

I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
making) - did happen.

> In fact, most people who believe evolution occurred, and is still occurring every day, are > believers in God.

Many whether believers in God or not, accept Evolution as a fact
because they have been indoctrinated in the school system or through
the media that IT DID HAPPEN THAT WAY!

> The people who look really silly in this discussion are the people who
> believe the earth is 6000 years old, and who also believe that all of the
> world's millions of species of animals evolved from a few "kinds" who left
> Noah's boat 4000 years ago.
>
Those who accept the Biblical timeline and Noah's Ark do not say what
you have posted above.
As with Darwin and his finches in the Galapogas Islands there can be
variety within a 'kind' -(family / species) and that is what is
happening even today because in procreation no progeny is exactly the
same as its parents.
But that is not what evolution is understood to be in its overall
sense, of a single-celled organism that is seen to be simple, (but in
actual fact is amazingly complex), and which has changed through
whatever mode of depiction that is given:- tree of life, ladder of
life, cladistics (branches of the tree of life that avoid the
embarrassing beginnings in bacteria and fungai that was given 44 years
ago), to modern humans who are still seen by some evolutionists as
evolved from unknown ape-like ancestors.

>From my reading of school textbooks (Primary and Secondary) there is no
indication of the Biblical creator - no sense of the need for faith in
an Almighty God involved in the process of creating life. Mother Nature
- a personification of natural processes - receives the credit for the
variety of adaptations in changed environmental conditions.

So it could be, Theo, that the appeal to the work of a God / gods in
the evolutionary process can be just window-dressing to have people
with a religious faith involved without exploring both sides of the
issue.

> > Creation scientists have just as much right to be heard publically as
> > do the Evolutionary scientists.
>
> There's no such thing as a creation scientist.

There are scientists who have a Christian faith and who, from their
research studies, believe there is evidence that God Almighty created,
not working from unicellular to multicelluar, but creating according
to basic 'kinds'- families and species of animals and plants.
They ARE Creation Scientists within the context of modern terminology.

> Name just one and point me to their thesis on the origin of the earth and the animals
> who live on it. A proper thesis on origin, not a debunking of an evolutionary work. Even I > can do that.
>
Theo, any scientist, whether creationist or evolutionist, cannot by the
accepted scientific method of testing, retesting, repeating, can
'prove' scientifically how living organisms began in the distant past,
whether that be thousands or millions of years ago. Both groups are
looking at the evidences of those times still available in the natural
world.
Theo, you are well aware that there are many Creation sites on the
internet.
http: www.answersingenesis.org

is one which can give you thousands of articles from their scientists.
In the Search enter 'Ouestions and Answers' and you will have so many
articles at the click of the mouse that will keep you occupied for
quite a long time.
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
2006-04-11 23:12:02 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
> > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
> > > was no Almighty God involved.
> >
> > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
> > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
> > told that evolution does not exclude God?
>
> I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
> accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
> ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
> making) - did happen.

And we are well aware of this ad nauseam rant and of its irrelevance
to the question. We are also aware of your inability/refusal to learn
even the basics of the theory and of your inability to respond
pertinently and appropriately when even the most elementary points
are being put to you - see your last for an example.


<snip>



Sean McHugh


-
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-12 01:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Sean McHugh wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
> >
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > >
> > > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> > > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
> > > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
> > > > was no Almighty God involved.
> > >
> > > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
> > > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
> > > told that evolution does not exclude God?
> >
The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
means he likes" does not really answer the question.

> > I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
> > accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
> > ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
> > making) - did happen.
>
<snip>>

Sean, You are so convinced that 'molecules- to-man' - 'bit-by-bit'
evolution DID happen and you and your fellow-evolutionists do not want
any others to be giving any information that is to the contrary.

I do not claim to know all the information on both sides of this issue.


What are the 'basics of the theory' of evolution?
>From my reading they are that millions of years ago chemicals (from
where did they come?
or did they magically make themselves?) became a /some living
organism(s) and from thence gradually increased in number and variety
to form all the living organisms in the world today.
It might be said that way back in time there was an unknown ancestor
from whom all the cats, dogs, bears, antelopes,
monkeys.............etc. etc. etc humans evolved
ie changed from one to another as appears to me to be the present way
of presenting the information to school students. (University of NSW
Science Competitions is one example).

If there is 'an UNKNOWN 'ancestor' for each of the kinds' of living
organisms isn't it possible that that 'Unknown ancestor' is God
Almighty Who in the New Testament record is Jesus Christ.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God
and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth

Or is it now that with claddistics each modern- day group came from its
own unknown ancient forbear so that it is made to appear that way back
in time various chemicals somehow became living, with or without the
power of an Almighty God (Supernatural Living Being - Intelligent
Designer) and progressed bit-by-bit to the living organisms we know
today?

As I see it, the creative activity of THE God Almighty solves all the
problems.
God created - and with the genetic information that would allow change
in different environmental conditions, BUT not from one 'kind' to
another 'kind' (be that family or species)
Creation scientists state that there is evidence for such change. But
the term 'evolution' should not be used for that change because it only
causes confusion.

The New Testament of the Bible identifies God Almighty (Creator) as
the Triune God - Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit - not three
separate gods - but One in their Being. Yes! that is a hard concept,
but one I can accept by faith - because of the life death, resurrection
and ascension of Jesus Christ.
Gladys Swager
NoOneKnows
2006-04-12 01:35:57 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean McHugh wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>> >
>> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> > > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove
>> > > > that
>> > > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to
>> > > > the
>> > > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that
>> > > > there
>> > > > was no Almighty God involved.
>> > >
>> > > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution
>> > > does
>> > > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need
>> > > to be
>> > > told that evolution does not exclude God?
>> >
> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
>> > I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
>> > accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
>> > ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
>> > making) - did happen.
>>
> <snip>>
>
> Sean, You are so convinced that 'molecules- to-man' - 'bit-by-bit'
> evolution DID happen and you and your fellow-evolutionists do not want
> any others to be giving any information that is to the contrary.
>
> I do not claim to know all the information on both sides of this issue.
>
>
> What are the 'basics of the theory' of evolution?
>>From my reading they are that millions of years ago chemicals (from
> where did they come?
> or did they magically make themselves?) became a /some living
> organism(s) and from thence gradually increased in number and variety
> to form all the living organisms in the world today.
> It might be said that way back in time there was an unknown ancestor
> from whom all the cats, dogs, bears, antelopes,
> monkeys.............etc. etc. etc humans evolved
> ie changed from one to another as appears to me to be the present way
> of presenting the information to school students. (University of NSW
> Science Competitions is one example).
>
> If there is 'an UNKNOWN 'ancestor' for each of the kinds' of living
> organisms isn't it possible that that 'Unknown ancestor' is God
> Almighty Who in the New Testament record is Jesus Christ.
>
> John 1
> In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God
> and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
> John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
> begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth
>
> Or is it now that with claddistics each modern- day group came from its
> own unknown ancient forbear so that it is made to appear that way back
> in time various chemicals somehow became living, with or without the
> power of an Almighty God (Supernatural Living Being - Intelligent
> Designer) and progressed bit-by-bit to the living organisms we know
> today?
>
> As I see it, the creative activity of THE God Almighty solves all the
> problems.
> God created - and with the genetic information that would allow change
> in different environmental conditions, BUT not from one 'kind' to
> another 'kind' (be that family or species)
> Creation scientists state that there is evidence for such change. But
> the term 'evolution' should not be used for that change because it only
> causes confusion.
>
> The New Testament of the Bible identifies God Almighty (Creator) as
> the Triune God - Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit - not three
> separate gods - but One in their Being. Yes! that is a hard concept,
> but one I can accept by faith - because of the life death, resurrection
> and ascension of Jesus Christ.
> Gladys Swager
>

We all came from Aliens.......

The truth is out there - believe no one!

:-)
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-12 02:57:01 UTC
Permalink
NoOneKnows wrote:

> We all came from aliens....the truth is out there - believe no one!

Aliens in your bedroom?

http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v27/i2/aliens.asp
Gladys Swager

> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>

> > The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> > answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> > means he likes" does not really answer the question.

<snip>

> > If there is 'an UNKNOWN 'ancestor' for each of the kinds' of living
> > organisms isn't it possible that that 'Unknown ancestor' is God
> > Almighty Who in the New Testament record is Jesus Christ.
> >
> > John 1
> > In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God
> > and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
> > John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
> > begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth
> >
<snip>

> > God created - and with the genetic information that would allow change
> > in different environmental conditions, BUT not from one 'kind' to
> > another 'kind' (be that family or species)
> > Creation scientists state that there is evidence for such change. But
> > the term 'evolution' should not be used for that change because it only
> > causes confusion.
> >
> > The New Testament of the Bible identifies God Almighty (Creator) as
> > the Triune God - Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit - not three
> > separate gods - but One in their Being. Yes! that is a hard concept,
> > but one I can accept by faith - because of the life death, resurrection
> > and ascension of Jesus Christ.
> > Gladys Swager
NoOneKnows
2006-04-12 04:21:21 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> NoOneKnows wrote:
>
>> We all came from aliens....the truth is out there - believe no one!
>
> Aliens in your bedroom?
>
> http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v27/i2/aliens.asp

Sorry, seems that page is subject to intergalactic server failure....

Probably the damn Klingons again, they're always tampering with those
subspace links back to the popular servers... Unless it's the Romulans, but
usually they take out the whole damn DNS server for everything...

Oh well...



> Gladys Swager
>
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
> <snip>
>
>> > The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> > answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> > means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
> <snip>
>
>> > If there is 'an UNKNOWN 'ancestor' for each of the kinds' of living
>> > organisms isn't it possible that that 'Unknown ancestor' is God
>> > Almighty Who in the New Testament record is Jesus Christ.
>> >
>> > John 1
>> > In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God
>> > and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
>> > John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
>> > begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth
>> >
> <snip>
>
>> > God created - and with the genetic information that would allow change
>> > in different environmental conditions, BUT not from one 'kind' to
>> > another 'kind' (be that family or species)
>> > Creation scientists state that there is evidence for such change. But
>> > the term 'evolution' should not be used for that change because it only
>> > causes confusion.
>> >
>> > The New Testament of the Bible identifies God Almighty (Creator) as
>> > the Triune God - Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit - not three
>> > separate gods - but One in their Being. Yes! that is a hard concept,
>> > but one I can accept by faith - because of the life death, resurrection
>> > and ascension of Jesus Christ.
>> > Gladys Swager
>
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-12 10:40:50 UTC
Permalink
NoOneKnows wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > NoOneKnows wrote:
> >
> >> We all came from aliens....the truth is out there - believe no one!
> >
> > Aliens in your bedroom?
> >
> > http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v27/i2/aliens.asp
>
With apologies. It doesn't come up on my computer either.

I entered 'Aliens in your bedroom' in the Search prompt on my computer
and the topic was the first one presented. I clicked on -

www.answersingenesis.org

I hope that will work for you.

> Sorry, seems that page is subject to intergalactic server failure....
> Probably the ........ Klingons again, they're always tampering with those
> subspace links back to the popular servers... Unless it's the Romulans, but
> usually they take out the whole ..........DNS server for everything...
> Oh well...
>
However, thank you for the laughs I had as I read the above.
>
<snip>
>
> >> > John 1
> >> > In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God
> >> > and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
> >> > John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
> >> > begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth
> >> >
> > <snip>
> >
I came across another newsgroup when searching the Internet earlier.
The website I wrote down did not work when I tried to return to it.

So I hope the author of the following comment will not judge the
following as plagiarism if he sees it reposted here.

Evolution over time = trial and error - implies that God made mistakes.
Gladys Swager
NoOneKnows
2006-04-13 22:56:17 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> NoOneKnows wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > NoOneKnows wrote:
>> >
>> >> We all came from aliens....the truth is out there - believe no one!
>> >
>> > Aliens in your bedroom?
>> >
>> > http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v27/i2/aliens.asp
>>
> With apologies. It doesn't come up on my computer either.
>
> I entered 'Aliens in your bedroom' in the Search prompt on my computer
> and the topic was the first one presented. I clicked on -
>
> www.answersingenesis.org
>
> I hope that will work for you.
>
>> Sorry, seems that page is subject to intergalactic server failure....
>> Probably the ........ Klingons again, they're always tampering with those
>> subspace links back to the popular servers... Unless it's the Romulans,
>> but
>> usually they take out the whole ..........DNS server for everything...
>> Oh well...
>>
> However, thank you for the laughs I had as I read the above.

Well, that was the intention. Hope it lightened ip your dat a little...

>>
> <snip>
>>
>> >> > John 1
>> >> > In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with
>> >> > God
>> >> > and the Word was God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
>> >> > John also wrote that they had seen His glory, the glory of the (only
>> >> > begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth
>> >> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
> I came across another newsgroup when searching the Internet earlier.
> The website I wrote down did not work when I tried to return to it.
>
> So I hope the author of the following comment will not judge the
> following as plagiarism if he sees it reposted here.
>
> Evolution over time = trial and error - implies that God made mistakes.
> Gladys Swager
>
Sean McHugh
2006-04-12 01:55:05 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> Sean McHugh wrote:
> > "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
> > >
> > > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > > > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> > > > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
> > > > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
> > > > > was no Almighty God involved.
> > > >
> > > > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
> > > > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
> > > > told that evolution does not exclude God?
> > >
> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
> > > I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
> > > accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
> > > ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
> > > making) - did happen.
> >
> <snip>>
>
> Sean, You are so convinced that 'molecules- to-man' - 'bit-by-bit'
> evolution DID happen and you and your fellow-evolutionists do not want
> any others to be giving any information that is to the contrary.


Yet another example. Your replies rarely have anything to do with
the points being addressed to you. I criticised you for that and you
immediately come back with another example of the same. It is as if
you have some creationist statement generator that churns out mindless
ad nauseam puerile responses with no awareness of what it is actually
responding to.

> I do not claim to know all the information on both sides of this issue.

Yet another example (and more followed). Gladys, can you even read?

Since all the criticism you have received for just snipping your
opponents' counterarguments, you have developed another trick. You
quote it, but then totally and literally ignore it. You'll quote
paragraphs form the other person, but your replies will have nothing
to do with what the other person has said. You use them only to
divide up your childlike rhetoric (Gladys spam) denouncing
evolution - yet offering no scientific alternative. One doesn't even
need to be talking about evolution to you, and in this case, I wasn't;
I was talking about you and the woeful standards of your replies.

Like I said, Gladys, you think you are polite, but you are not.
What you are doing now is even worse than what you were doing before.
The more I see, the more I become convinced that Creationism is
anathema to one's integrity. It certainly is with yours.



<snip unread spam>



Sean McHugh
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-12 03:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Don't believe evolution - just accept it

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0519believe_evo.asp
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-04-12 23:27:19 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Sean McHugh wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>> >
>> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> > > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
>> > > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
>> > > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
>> > > > was no Almighty God involved.
>> > >
>> > > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
>> > > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
>> > > told that evolution does not exclude God?
>> >
>The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>means he likes" does not really answer the question.

Gladys, you are really in the wrong business.
In ancient Greece people went to Delphi to get advice from the
mouthpiece of the gods.
You seem to be claiming that you know more about what God would or
would not do than the rest of us.
You should set up in the business of being God's oracle.

It makes perfect sense for any humble person to say that God can use
any means he likes to accomplish anything he wants.
Or are you *really* saying that you don't believe that God is
omnipotent, and that he *can't* create in any way he chooses?

>> > I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
>> > accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
>> > ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
>> > making) - did happen.

[rest of post deleted]

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Imagine the trauma and shock of finally realizing that Flood geology,
which has been endorsed so enthusiastically by well-meaning Christian
leaders, is nothing more than a fantasy.' Davis A. Young
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-13 07:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> >The issue, ....... is:- "Would God Almighty create by evolution?"
>> The answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> >means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
> Gladys, you are really in the wrong business.
> In ancient Greece people went to Delphi to get advice from the
> mouthpiece of the gods.
> You seem to be claiming that you know more about what God would or
> would not do than the rest of us.
> You should set up in the business of being God's oracle.

Ken, For you to bring in Delphi and the Greek gods is, in my opinion,
'a red herring'.
I have no intention of setting myself up as God's oracle.
But if you think that way, surely Theistic evolutionists who express
the opinion that God used evolution over millions of years, are
themselves acting as God's oracles -
that is, "We know, with absolute certainty, that God created way!
>
> It makes perfect sense for any humble person to say that God can use
> any means he likes to accomplish anything he wants.
> Or are you *really* saying that you don't believe that God is
> omnipotent, and that he *can't* create in any way he chooses?
>
I would say that God can only use ways that are consistent with His
attributes (nature)
- omnipotent (all-powerful),
- omniscient (all-knowing),
- infinite in His Being (wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth)
(from Westminster Shorter Catechism).

Would Almighty God with those attributes have created living organisms
over
a long period of time
OR
would Almighty God with those attributes have created living organisms
by the power of His word so they were complete according to their
'kinds' - the Biblical word - not the word(s)used in today's scientific
terminology
>
Some Scientists who are Christians say the first statement is true.
Some Scientists who are Christians say the second statement is true.

And, please, Ken don't post statistics of the numbers of each, because
there has been indoctrination through all of the Secondary schools
since 1962 and Primary and Pre-schools from sometime after the mid
1970's (I haven't followed through to find those actual dates) and
from about 1986, through the media (as far as I can date the publicity
there) which would have been shortly after I spoke on Radio 2GB (early
August 1985) indicating the Almighty Living God had to create because
living had to create living

Now, all people who have the Internet can follow the arguments through
on both sides.
When I came into this newsgroup I determined to give the views of
Creation scientists.
as far as I was able to do so. I do not claim that I know all the
answers, neither do the Creation scientists nor do the evolutionary
scientists, as only God knows all the answers.

> `Imagine the trauma and shock of finally realizing that Flood geology,
> which has been endorsed so enthusiastically by well-meaning Christian
> leaders, is nothing more than a fantasy.' Davis A. Young

Strange, those who believe in Evolution will use the fantasical story
of the Gilgamesh Epic for proof of a local flood in the Babylonian area
against the Biblical world-wide flood that,
in its description in the Bible, is more sensible.
Gladys Swager

Noah's Flood Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

Gladys Swager
Epigram
2006-04-20 00:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Forgive my late entry... my nntp server was on holiday, so I sacked it for a new one.

On 04/13/2006 15:07:49 "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Ken Smith wrote:

>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

>>> The issue, ....... is:- "Would God Almighty create by evolution?" The
>>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any means
>>> he likes" does not really answer the question.

>> Gladys, you are really in the wrong business. In ancient Greece people
>> went to Delphi to get advice from the mouthpiece of the gods. You seem to
>> be claiming that you know more about what God would or would not do than
>> the rest of us. You should set up in the business of being God's oracle.

> Ken, For you to bring in Delphi and the Greek gods is, in my opinion, 'a
> red herring'. I have no intention of setting myself up as God's oracle.
> But if you think that way, surely Theistic evolutionists who express the
> opinion that God used evolution over millions of years, are themselves
> acting as God's oracles - that is, "We know, with absolute certainty, that
> God created way!

Zoologists, biologists and even cosmologists don't make that claim at all. Consequently statements are made to the effect of "I/We believe that ... because all the available evidence points me/us in that direction."

The crucial word here is "evidence". A theory can be almost anything, but if it doesn't fit the available relalent data, it is meaningless.

As a result, even theories evolve.

>> It makes perfect sense for any humble person to say that God can use any
>> means he likes to accomplish anything he wants. Or are you *really*
>> saying that you don't believe that God is omnipotent, and that he *can't*
>> create in any way he chooses?

> I would say that God can only use ways that are consistent with His
> attributes (nature) - omnipotent (all-powerful), - omniscient
> (all-knowing), - infinite in His Being (wisdom, holiness, justice,
> goodness, truth) (from Westminster Shorter Catechism).

But God isn't limited to our thinking. His attributes include: omnipotent, omnipresent (everywhere at once) and omniscient. So he doens't need your omnibus of definitions to limit his status as a deity.

> Would Almighty God with those attributes have created living organisms
> over a long period of time OR would Almighty God with those attributes
> have created living organisms by the power of His word so they were
> complete according to their 'kinds' - the Biblical word - not the
> word(s)used in today's scientific terminology

> Some Scientists who are Christians say the first statement is true. Some
> Scientists who are Christians say the second statement is true.

You ask the wrong question. The question you are looking for is "Why WOULDN'T Almighty God with those attritubes have created living organisms over ANY period of time HE CHOOSES."

Another point, which I'm sure you are to dismiss as a lexical argument, is that only in English is the word "kinds" used, and a very specific Dogma is attributed to that word.

If, then, the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God knew that English would evolve from Germanic (via Middle English, Old English, Anglo-Frisian, West (low) Germanic), and that English would be the lingua franca of today's capitalist, cyber-technological world, why didn't he give the authors of the bible an infalible method of leaving a trace of his work on throughout the internet?


[...rest of non-argument and nonsense conspiracy theory deleted...]

> Gladys Swager

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Theo Bekkers
2006-04-19 13:22:35 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> means he likes" does not really answer the question.

You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-19 22:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
> > The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> > answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> > means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
> You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>
I am not limiting the Omnipotnet God Almighty.
I would accuse you of demeaning the Omnipotent God Almighty.

The Omnipotent God Almighty created the Universe by the power of His
word.

Why then couldn't the Omnipotent God Almighty create living things by
the same power
The fact that God used the dust of the ground to create Adam does not
mean that He used millions of years of tooth and claw bloodshed
(natural selection) to change some of one group (kind) of animals into
another group (kind).

God Almighty didn't use the dust to create Eve. So working that way was
not the only way that Omnipotent God Almighty worked.

God Almighty didn't use evolution to change one group of humans into
another basically different group through the centuries/ millenniums.
There have only been superficial differences in humans due to
environmental conditions and isolation from other groups.
'God has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face
of the earth.
Acts 17 : 26. Differences in humans are really only skin-deep.

Biblically animals were created according to their kinds - (family
genus) - not from one kind to another up 'a tree of life' - (more
modern terminology - cladograms with unknown original forebears)

Sean, I'll use this posting to say that, in respect of skulls RE 1470
and Er 1813, the majority of us do not have the scientific training to
make our own evaluations. We are dependent of the investigations of
scientists working in their fields of study.
I gave you an answer previously as it seemed to me at the time that the
placement of skulls according to their kind had to need more than just
casual observation.

'The rise and fall of Skull KNM - ER 1470' - gives a Creation
Scientist's response to this issue

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/skull_1470.asp

There is to be a TV sceening of a film on penguins.

The following from 'It Couldn't Just Happen' by Lawence Richards -
published 1987
can give some understandings to those who watch the film.
( I haven't checked - this book may be out of print now.)

'What an amazing design! Each bird has an apron of feathered skin to
warm the egg.
Each takes its turn, standing with its back to blizzards and sleet.
And each takes its turn travelling out to sea and back with food -
always arriving just in time to feed the chick before it starves!

Patterns like this, which occur time and time again in the animal world
are evidence of careful planning and design.
How hard it is to imagine that the Theory of Evolution can offer a
reasonable explanation for such complex patterns of behaviour;
how easy to see the hand of God!
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-04-20 00:17:24 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>> > The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> > answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> > means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>>
>> You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>>
>I am not limiting the Omnipotnet God Almighty.
>I would accuse you of demeaning the Omnipotent God Almighty.

>The Omnipotent God Almighty created the Universe by the power of His
>word.

>Why then couldn't the Omnipotent God Almighty create living things by
>the same power
>The fact that God used the dust of the ground to create Adam does not
>mean that He used millions of years of tooth and claw bloodshed
>(natural selection) to change some of one group (kind) of animals into
>another group (kind).

Nor does it *not* mean that he *didn't* use evolution, Gladys.
Or, simplifying the syntax, God *could* have used evolution.
An omnipotent being can do anything he/she/it wants to, and is
certainly not bound to use only those ideas approved by certain
religious fundamentalists, mainly form USA.

Which method God used is up to scientists to discover.
I'm sure you've heard people quote Albert Einstein, Gladys.
"The Lord God is subtle, but he is not malicious."
If we are to take creationists at their work, God is either behaving
in the same way as Loki, or he's a charlatan, deceiving honest people,
both Christian and non-Christian, by planting false evidence about
things for us to discover.

I know that language is pretty strong, but I'm being polite, compared
to what a lot of people have said about creationists.

The latest strong criticism was Judge John Jones, who last December in
his ruling that "intelligent design" was religion, and not scientists,
said bluntly that he didn't understand how these religious people
could lie under oath in court, in support of their religious agenda.

[rest of irrelevant stuff deleted]


Salaam
Ken Smith>Gladys Swager

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`So I became convinced that humans and aliens are bound to be good friends
if they have only half a chance. You see, sir, we spent those two hours
telling dirty jokes.' Tommy Dort, in "First Contact"
Epigram
2006-04-20 01:59:45 UTC
Permalink
On 04/20/2006 06:03:10 "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

[...]

> The following from 'It Couldn't Just Happen' by Lawence Richards -
> published 1987 can give some understandings to those who watch the film. (
> I haven't checked - this book may be out of print now.)

If it's not, it should be.

> 'What an amazing design! Each bird has an apron of feathered skin to warm
> the egg. Each takes its turn, standing with its back to blizzards and
> sleet. And each takes its turn travelling out to sea and back with food -
> always arriving just in time to feed the chick before it starves!

> Patterns like this, which occur time and time again in the animal world
> are evidence of careful planning and design. How hard it is to imagine
> that the Theory of Evolution can offer a reasonable explanation for such
> complex patterns of behaviour; how easy to see the hand of God! Gladys
> Swager

Of course this simple observation ignores the possibility that some males drop the egg after the female passes it to him, and thus the embryo dies.

It also ignores the possibility that the females may arrived to late after hatching so that the chick dies.

It has made the assumption that everything works perfectly, which of course it doesn't.

In the same way you make the reverse assumption that because science doesn't answer the question of how life began without any doubt that it is therefore wrong in both its quest and results thus far.

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Sean McHugh
2006-04-27 02:55:26 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:

<snip>

> Sean, I'll use this posting to say that, in respect of skulls RE
> 1470 and Er 1813,

Again I ask, how long have you been writing in this newsgroup, Gladys?
Answer a post where it is issued and quote what you are answering, OK!!
This is even a different strand in the thread. I mostly ignore or skim
your offerings and my missing this would have been easy. Like I said,
Gladys, you think you are polite, but your posting habits are anything
but. To rectify for your typical Creationist disregard for protocol,
and to clean up after you, one will have to go Googling. Here is what
Gladys said and what I responded with:

<http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/53a209949c08ac96?hl=en&>

SQ:
================================================================
***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:

<snip>

> Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are
> extinct within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been
> ascribed?
> OR
> that they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
> characteristics (apes and humans)
> I would say that humans should not be grouped with apes)?

So then please tell us in which group ER 1470 and ER 1813 belong,
Gladys:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/14701813.html

You may use any Creationist literature available to assist you in
giving _your_ answer.

No tedious digressions/detours please.

<snip>

Sean McHugh
================================================================
EQ:

> the majority of us do not have the scientific training to make
> our own evaluations.

But that is a dishonest answer, Gladys. I didn't ask you there to
give your own _evaluations_, now did I? I asked you to give your
own _answer_ using the advice of your Creation
Scientists, did I not?

> We are dependent of the
> investigations of scientists working in their fields of study.

And I asked you to refer to your 'scientists' for your answer, did
I not?

> I gave you an answer previously as it seemed to me at the time that
> the placement of skulls according to their kind had to need more
> than just casual observation.

But I didn't ask you to answer by way of a casual observation, now
did I, Gladys? I asked you to get the advice of your 'scientists' for
your answer. I am still waiting. Remember, from a perspective of
evolution, there are intermediates so it it is not always easy to
assign a position along the scale. Hominid/pongid features come by
degrees and there might be further or lesser development with certain
features. However, the bottom line is that difficulty in assigning
them is actually indicative of their being intermediate. With
Creation Science, it is black or white; they are either _fully_ human
or _fully_ ape. Any difficulty there is detrimental to the Creations'
position.

So if the specimens are simply human or ape, there shouldn't
be any beating around the bush, should there, Gladys?

> 'The rise and fall of Skull KNM - ER 1470' - gives a Creation
> Scientist's response to this issue

So this is the "Scientist's" response you present. His diploma is in
theology! That's beautiful.

> http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/skull_1470.asp

I find no actual commitment on that page. You obviously have, so
refer to it to tell us if ER 1470 is fully human or fully ape. You
might go to the "Conclusion". It's near the bottom.

Just to show I'm helpful, here is another Creationist page that
provides the thoughts (regarding 1470) of Creation Scientist,
Lubenow (2nd paragraph):

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/em14.htm

Now you have two Creationist pages dedicated to ER 1470, to simply
find out if 1470 is, according to the Creationists' black and white
taxonomy, human or ape. That should make it really easy, shouldn't it?

So once again, using your "Scientists'" advice, please tell us to
which group ER 1470 and ER 1813 belong. At least tell us to which
group 1470 belongs.

One can almost guarantee that Gladys won't answer. What she will
probably do is dance for us.

<snip>


Sean McHugh



-
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Epigram
2006-04-27 04:06:00 UTC
Permalink
On 04/27/2006 10:55:26 Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> wrote:

[...]

> One can almost guarantee that Gladys won't answer. What she will probably
> do is dance for us.

> Sean McHugh

She's been tap-dancing for ages, with no sign of tiring *sigh* But don't give up - she's stuck in the NSW 1950 High School curriculum and only now has discovered it ain't perfect, so perhaps the net will speed things up if only she steered clear from that cursed creationist/illusionist/false-science website.

Toby (who used to think Gladys was a bot).

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Sean McHugh
2006-04-27 04:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Epigram wrote:
>
> On 04/27/2006 10:55:26 Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > One can almost guarantee that Gladys won't answer. What she will probably
> > do is dance for us.
>
> > Sean McHugh
>
> She's been tap-dancing for ages, with no sign of tiring *sigh* But don't give up - she's stuck in the NSW 1950 High School curriculum and only now has discovered it ain't perfect, so perhaps the net will speed things up if only she steered clear from that cursed creationist/illusionist/false-science website.


She won't. Despite what she claims, she gets all her information
from Creationist web sites, mainly AIG. I have never seen her citing
anything else with regard Evolution.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh



-
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Epigram
2006-04-27 23:21:04 UTC
Permalink
On 04/27/2006 12:29:31 Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> wrote:

> Epigram wrote:

>> On 04/27/2006 10:55:26 Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> wrote:

>> [...]

>>> One can almost guarantee that Gladys won't answer. What she will
>>> probably do is dance for us.

>>> Sean McHugh

>> She's been tap-dancing for ages, with no sign of tiring *sigh* But don't
>> give up - she's stuck in the NSW 1950 High School curriculum and only now
>> has discovered it ain't perfect, so perhaps the net will speed things up
>> if only she steered clear from that cursed
>> creationist/illusionist/false-science website.

> She won't. Despite what she claims, she gets all her information from
> Creationist web sites, mainly AIG. I have never seen her citing anything
> else with regard Evolution.

Has anyone? Of course, to be fair, she does often say the likes of "I don't have the answer to that one right now, I'll get back to you" _before_ citing some kooky stuff, which is totally unrealated to the question, from a creationist/illusionist/false-science site. Hmm, sounds unquestionably like the tactics of Fred Nile (Fred in cyber-drag?!) or Gladys Berejiklian... And I'm not from NSW!

> Best Regards,

> Sean McHugh

All together now - "Evo! Is not a dirty word! Evo! Is not a dirty word! Evo! Is not a dirty word! Don't you believe what you've seen or you've heard."

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-28 04:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Sean McHugh wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are
> > extinct within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been
> > ascribed?
> > OR
> > that they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
> > characteristics (eg. apes and humans)
> > I would say that humans should not be grouped with apes?
>
> So then please tell us in which group ER 1470 and ER 1813 belong,

Sean, I am not in a position in which I can do all the scientific tests
necessary to determine the grouping for those skulls.

<snip>
>
> 'The rise and fall of Skull KNM - ER 1470' - gives a Creation
> > Scientist's response to this issue
>
> So this is the "Scientist's" response you present. His diploma is in
> theology! That's beautiful.
>
He, no doubt, has read other Creationist literature.
Do you agree with him or not?
If not?..... What were his erropr(s) according to your Evolutionary
research.
For that matter, have you actually done research as a highly qualified
scientist in ape/human anatomy?????
Or are you also referring to the work of other scientists???????????

<snip>

Basically, I believe you are making 'a mountain out of a molehill'.
Tell me why you think, of all the fossils there are, that these are so
very important?????
>
> One can almost guarantee that Gladys won't answer.
> What she will probably do is dance for us.
>
Dance for you guys. Never!
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-04-20 00:07:24 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:

>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.

>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.

Or in the words of J. B. Phillips, whose translation of the New
Testament brought new light on things to many people, including me,
"Your God Is Too Small", Gladys.
I'll have to dig that book out and read it again.

>Theo

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`So I became convinced that humans and aliens are bound to be good friends
if they have only half a chance. You see, sir, we spent those two hours
telling dirty jokes.' Tommy Dort, in "First Contact"
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-23 01:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> >You are limiting your omnipotent God, Gladys.
>
> Or in the words of J. B. Phillips, whose translation of the New
> Testament brought new light on things to many people, including me,
> "Your God Is Too Small", Gladys. <snip>

That's a matter of your opinion that my 'God is too small'.

The Gospel of John - verses from chapter 1

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD
WAS GOD
........ Through him all things were made, without Him nothing was made
that has been made.
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
. ......
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
We have seen His glory, (when? ...at His Transfiguration Matthew 17 : 1
- 5)
the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace
and truth.'
>
Can it be said that Jesus Christ (God in human form) was too small in
His ministry, His miracles, His death and His resurrection?

Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
considereing His miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Omnipotence is all powerful. By the power of His Word - by Jesus Christ
- creation came to be.
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-04-26 23:14:09 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Ken Smith wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> >You are limiting your omnipotent God, Gladys.
>>
>> Or in the words of J. B. Phillips, whose translation of the New
>> Testament brought new light on things to many people, including me,
>> "Your God Is Too Small", Gladys. <snip>

>That's a matter of your opinion that my 'God is too small'.

>The Gospel of John - verses from chapter 1

>'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD
>WAS GOD
>........ Through him all things were made, without Him nothing was made
>that has been made.
>In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
>. ......
>The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
>We have seen His glory, (when? ...at His Transfiguration Matthew 17 : 1
>- 5)
>the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace
>and truth.'
>>
>Can it be said that Jesus Christ (God in human form) was too small in
>His ministry, His miracles, His death and His resurrection?

All the above is irrelevant to any duiscussion about evolution.

>Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
>'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
>considereing His miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Yes, he could have.
If you deny that he *could* have done this, aren't you denying his
omnipotence?
Whether or not it "adds up" to you is, again, irrelevant.

Science, and evolution as part of science, is about what actually
happens or happened in the past - like nuclear fusion in the sun in
the past providing us with light and warmth today.
It's not about what you think should have happened so that it agrees
with your adoption of Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Genesis.

>Omnipotence is all powerful. By the power of His Word - by Jesus Christ
>- creation came to be.

As I said above - he *could* create in any way he chooses - including
using the processes of evolution.

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"Those who are in my company must be ready to sleep upon the bare floor, wear
coarse clothes, get up at unearthly hours, subsist on uninviting, simple food,
even clean their own toilets." Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-28 04:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >The Gospel of John - verses from chapter 1
> >'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD
> >WAS GOD ........ Through Him all things were made, without Him nothing was made
> >that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. . ......
> >The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
> >We have seen His glory, (when? ...at His Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-5)
> > the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace
> >and truth.'
> >Can it be said that Jesus Christ (God in human form) was too small in
> >His ministry, His miracles, His death and His resurrection?
>
> All the above is irrelevant to any discussion about evolution.
>
I would say it is very relevant if you are considering the possibility
of an Almighty God as the One Who Created.
John, as he wrote his gospel, gave an introduction that matched the
first words of Genesis chapter 1.
1. I would be of the opinion that was a deliberate choice on his part.
2. He was motivated by the Holy Spirit (Triune God) Who guided him in
how he should write.

Why would an omnipotent Almighty God create from one type of creature
to another type of creature when He had the power to create according
to their kinds (eg cat kind, dog family)

OR is it that you do not want to consider that evolution following the
ideas of Darwinian natural selection was taken beyond its natural
boundaries - ie. beyond the species?

Could it have been that Darwin felt a strong compulsion to 'prove
himself' in his family that was quite gifted academically - and after
not continuing his early studies in medicine and theology appeared as
somewhat of a misfit?
Did he consciously or subconsciously long for fame?

> >Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
> >'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
> >considereing His miracles recorded in the New Testament.

> Yes, he could have. If you deny that he *could* have done this, aren't you denying his
> omnipotence? Whether or not it "adds up" to you is, again, irrelevant.
>
But it needs to be thought through to a logical conclusion.

> Science, and evolution as part of science, is about what actually
> happens or happened in the past - like nuclear fusion in the sun in
> the past providing us with light and warmth today.

What happened in the past is based on assumptions, basically two
assumptions.
Living came from non-living which then diversified (evolution)
Living came from a living Creator Who provided the means to change
within the 'kind' according to changed environmental conditions.
Which is the more creditable assumption?

> It's not about what you think should have happened so that it agrees
> with your adoption of Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Genesis.
>
Seventh-day Adventists belief about Genesis 1 was preceded by the
beliefs of many Jews and Christians through the centuries. The belief
that the Almighty God who created living organisms according to their
kind was accepted for about 4000 years (Biblical dating) before the
1800's.

> >Omnipotence is all powerful.
> > By the power of His Word - by Jesus Christ - creation came to be.
>
> As I said above - he *could* create in any way he chooses - including
> using the processes of evolution.
>
But He could only create according to His nature and attributes
That is fundamental to the issue.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-04-28 08:18:41 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken Smith wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >The Gospel of John - verses from chapter 1
>> >'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD
>> >WAS GOD ........ Through Him all things were made, without Him nothing
>> >was made
>> >that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
>> >. ......
>> >The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
>> >We have seen His glory, (when? ...at His Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-5)
>> > the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the Father, full of grace
>> >and truth.'
>> >Can it be said that Jesus Christ (God in human form) was too small in
>> >His ministry, His miracles, His death and His resurrection?
>>
>> All the above is irrelevant to any discussion about evolution.
>>
> I would say it is very relevant if you are considering the possibility
> of an Almighty God as the One Who Created.
> John, as he wrote his gospel, gave an introduction that matched the
> first words of Genesis chapter 1.
> 1. I would be of the opinion that was a deliberate choice on his part.
> 2. He was motivated by the Holy Spirit (Triune God) Who guided him in
> how he should write.
>
> Why would an omnipotent Almighty God create from one type of creature
> to another type of creature when He had the power to create according
> to their kinds (eg cat kind, dog family)

Why wouldn't he?
>
> OR is it that you do not want to consider that evolution following the
> ideas of Darwinian natural selection was taken beyond its natural
> boundaries - ie. beyond the species?
>
> Could it have been that Darwin felt a strong compulsion to 'prove
> himself' in his family that was quite gifted academically - and after
> not continuing his early studies in medicine and theology appeared as
> somewhat of a misfit?
> Did he consciously or subconsciously long for fame?

Talk about a non sequitor .... in any case, Darwin's theories are not
regarded as set in stone, and have been modified and revised repeatedly as
new data comes to light.

>
>> >Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
>> >'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
>> >considereing His miracles recorded in the New Testament.
>
>> Yes, he could have. If you deny that he *could* have done this, aren't
>> you denying his
>> omnipotence? Whether or not it "adds up" to you is, again, irrelevant.
>>
> But it needs to be thought through to a logical conclusion.

And the logical conclusion, if one acknowledges the existence of a creator
in the first place, is that an omnipotent god *could* have done either. All
the evidence, however, points to the evolutionary process as the way it
*did* happen.

>
>> Science, and evolution as part of science, is about what actually
>> happens or happened in the past - like nuclear fusion in the sun in
>> the past providing us with light and warmth today.
>
> What happened in the past is based on assumptions, basically two
> assumptions.
> Living came from non-living which then diversified (evolution)

Evolution does not address the question of origins, only of diversity.

> Living came from a living Creator Who provided the means to change
> within the 'kind' according to changed environmental conditions.
> Which is the more creditable assumption?

Which has the more evidence to support it?
>
>> It's not about what you think should have happened so that it agrees
>> with your adoption of Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Genesis.
>>
> Seventh-day Adventists belief about Genesis 1 was preceded by the
> beliefs of many Jews and Christians through the centuries. The belief
> that the Almighty God who created living organisms according to their
> kind was accepted for about 4000 years (Biblical dating) before the
> 1800's.

All religions have creation myths. This is not surprising, considering that
in a non-technological culture, people can only observe what is around
them - namely, diversity in the natural world - and account for it within
the limits of their own knowledge and understanding. Since they do not have
the means to investigate all the lengthy, gradual processes which preceded
their current environment, or even to comprehend the time-scale involved,
the only sensible explanation *to them* is that the world must have been
created as-is by some superior power.

Once one does have the science and technology to investigate further, that
explanation is no longer the only one or, indeed, the most probable.
However, science does not refute the existence of a creator, per se - only
the notion of creation in "kinds", with a limited range of diversification
within those "kinds".

>
>> >Omnipotence is all powerful.
>> > By the power of His Word - by Jesus Christ - creation came to be.
>>
>> As I said above - he *could* create in any way he chooses - including
>> using the processes of evolution.
>>
> But He could only create according to His nature and attributes
> That is fundamental to the issue.

Then you are indeed offering a very limited and finite god.

Jani
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-29 04:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Jani wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
<snip>

> > OR is it that you do not want to consider that evolution following the
> > ideas of Darwinian natural selection was taken beyond its natural
> > boundaries - ie. beyond the species?
> >
> > Could it have been that Darwin felt a strong compulsion to 'prove
> > himself' in his family that was quite gifted academically - and after
> > not continuing his early studies in medicine and theology appeared as
> > somewhat of a misfit?
> > Did he consciously or subconsciously long for fame?
>
> Talk about a non sequitor ....

non sequitor = does not follow.
I was putting the idea that Darwin had reasons within his own life's
experiences for taking the course that he did.

> in any case, Darwin's theories are not regarded as set in stone, and have been modified > and revised repeatedly as new data comes to light.
>
A quote from the writings of Charles Darwin 1876 - haven't listed the
website in my notes.

"In October 1838, ......I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
'Population'. and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on.... it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favourable variation would tend to be preserved and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed.
THE RESULT OF THIS WOULD BE THE FORMATION OF A NEW SPECIES.
(Capitalisation mine)
Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work."

Darwin had a theory on which to work - a theory that went back to the
ancient Greeks.
What his work appeared to him to be was to provide the scientific
evidence.
However, he did not scientifically prove that evolution occurred among
the finches in the Galapogas Islands.
> >
Book Review: The Beak of the Finch. Evolution in Real Time
by Jonathan Weiner, Random House 1994
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/finch.asp

Scientific Facts Against Evolution - Wonders of Design
http://evolution-facts.org/nature1.htm

> >> >Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
> >> >'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up considering His
> >> > miracles recorded in the New Testament.
> >
> >> Yes, he could have. If you deny that he *could* have done this, aren't
> >> you denying his omnipotence? Whether or not it "adds up" to you is, again, irrelevant.

> > But it needs to be thought through to a logical conclusion.
>
Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
stages.
When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied instantly.
When turning water into wine at the marriage celebrations in Cana the
best wine came out instantly.
In only one instant of restoring the sight to the blind was there two
stages in the miracle - partial sight to full sight and that was also
in a very short time.

> And the logical conclusion, if one acknowledges the existence of a creator
> in the first place, is that an omnipotent god *could* have done either. All
> the evidence, however, points to the evolutionary process as the way it
> *did* happen.
>
The logical conclusion from the miracles of Jesus, God in human flesh,
is that He did not need very long periods of time. In his gospel John
teaches that Jesus - pre-incarnate - created at the beginning of the
universe.
("Incarnation" - from the Latin, meaning "becoming flesh" that is
"becoming human".
The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the Eternal Son of God
(Trinity) became human, and that He did so without in any manner or
degree diminishing His divine nature.
- Zondervan Bible Dictionary

<snip>
>
> Evolution does not address the question of origins, only of diversity.
>
Evolutionists (atheistic) do 'not address the question of origins' -
that is true. They can't/won't because they would have to bring in a
basic scientific belief that 'living produces living ie. living does
not come from non-living. So the least said on that issue the better!

<snip>
>
> All religions have creation myths. This is not surprising, considering that
> in a non-technological culture, people can only observe what is around
> them - namely, diversity in the natural world - and account for it within
> the limits of their own knowledge and understanding. Since they do not have
> the means to investigate all the lengthy, gradual processes which preceded
> their current environment, or even to comprehend the time-scale involved,
> the only sensible explanation *to them* is that the world must have been
> created as-is by some superior power.
>
As far as I have read ideas held by indiginous peoples in many parts of
the world THEY all have ideas about how the world was created. But out
of them all is there one that is the true idea?

Jesus Christ in His ministry accepted. approved the Genesis account.
Matthew 19 : 4 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and
female.'

> Once one does have the science and technology to investigate further, that
> explanation is no longer the only one or, indeed, the most probable.
> However, science does not refute the existence of a creator, per se - only
> the notion of creation in "kinds", with a limited range of diversification
> within those "kinds".
>
'A limited range of diversification within kinds' adds up to the very
large number of different animals and plants that there are in the
world today. So that 'limitation' is a very limited issue.

<snip>

> > ....(God) could only create according to His nature and attributes.
> > That is fundamental to the issue.
>
> Then you are indeed offering a very limited and finite god.
>
Not a limited and finite God.
God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable , in his being, wisdom, power,
holiness, justice, goodness and truth. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-04-30 14:15:49 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jani wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
> <snip>
>
>> > OR is it that you do not want to consider that evolution following the
>> > ideas of Darwinian natural selection was taken beyond its natural
>> > boundaries - ie. beyond the species?
>> >
>> > Could it have been that Darwin felt a strong compulsion to 'prove
>> > himself' in his family that was quite gifted academically - and after
>> > not continuing his early studies in medicine and theology appeared as
>> > somewhat of a misfit?
>> > Did he consciously or subconsciously long for fame?
>>
>> Talk about a non sequitor ....
>
> non sequitor = does not follow.
> I was putting the idea that Darwin had reasons within his own life's
> experiences for taking the course that he did.

Which would neither validate nor invalidate his conclusions, nor would it
affect the research done by others in the same field.
>
>> in any case, Darwin's theories are not regarded as set in stone, and
>> have been modified > and revised repeatedly as new data comes to light.
>>
> A quote from the writings of Charles Darwin 1876 - haven't listed the
> website in my notes.
>
> "In October 1838, ......I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> 'Population'. and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> existence which everywhere goes on.... it at once struck me that under
> these circumstances favourable variation would tend to be preserved and
> unfavourable ones to be destroyed.
> THE RESULT OF THIS WOULD BE THE FORMATION OF A NEW SPECIES.
> (Capitalisation mine)
> Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work."
>
> Darwin had a theory on which to work - a theory that went back to the
> ancient Greeks.
> What his work appeared to him to be was to provide the scientific
> evidence.
> However, he did not scientifically prove that evolution occurred among
> the finches in the Galapogas Islands.
>> >
> Book Review: The Beak of the Finch. Evolution in Real Time
> by Jonathan Weiner, Random House 1994
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/finch.asp
>
> Scientific Facts Against Evolution - Wonders of Design
> http://evolution-facts.org/nature1.htm

The first link does not work; the second does not mention finches.

You seem to acknowledge that evolution can be observed within these
poorly-defined "kinds" which are so often mentioned: how do the Galapagos
finches *not* demonstrate this? I don't think anyone has ever suggested that
the finches, taken *on their own*, constitute evidence for other aspects of
the theory of evolution.



>> >> >Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
>> >> >'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
>> >> >considering His
>> >> > miracles recorded in the New Testament.
>> >
>> >> Yes, he could have. If you deny that he *could* have done this,
>> >> aren't
>> >> you denying his omnipotence? Whether or not it "adds up" to you is,
>> >> again, irrelevant.
>
>> > But it needs to be thought through to a logical conclusion.
>>
> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
> stages.
> When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied instantly.
> When turning water into wine at the marriage celebrations in Cana the
> best wine came out instantly.
> In only one instant of restoring the sight to the blind was there two
> stages in the miracle - partial sight to full sight and that was also
> in a very short time.

You're replying to yourself, here ... but in any case, this has nothing to
do with the *scientific* study of evolution, does it?


>> And the logical conclusion, if one acknowledges the existence of a
>> creator
>> in the first place, is that an omnipotent god *could* have done either.
>> All
>> the evidence, however, points to the evolutionary process as the way it
>> *did* happen.
>>
> The logical conclusion from the miracles of Jesus, God in human flesh,
> is that He did not need very long periods of time. In his gospel John
> teaches that Jesus - pre-incarnate - created at the beginning of the
> universe.
> ("Incarnation" - from the Latin, meaning "becoming flesh" that is
> "becoming human".
> The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the Eternal Son of God
> (Trinity) became human, and that He did so without in any manner or
> degree diminishing His divine nature.

No, that isn't a "logical conclusion", because you're conflating two
different issues. Even if one believes in the miracles as actual historical
events, they are events which would have had to have taken place there and
then, otherwise they would not have been "miracles". Using several
millennia to accomplish them would have been counter-productive.


>
> <snip>
>>
>> Evolution does not address the question of origins, only of diversity.
>>
> Evolutionists (atheistic) do 'not address the question of origins' -
> that is true. They can't/won't because they would have to bring in a
> basic scientific belief that 'living produces living ie. living does
> not come from non-living. So the least said on that issue the better!

They don't address it because it is not their field of study. There are
scientists who *do* conduct research into abiogenesis, but this is not the
same as the study of evolution.

>
> <snip>
>>
>> All religions have creation myths. This is not surprising, considering
>> that
>> in a non-technological culture, people can only observe what is around
>> them - namely, diversity in the natural world - and account for it within
>> the limits of their own knowledge and understanding. Since they do not
>> have
>> the means to investigate all the lengthy, gradual processes which
>> preceded
>> their current environment, or even to comprehend the time-scale involved,
>> the only sensible explanation *to them* is that the world must have been
>> created as-is by some superior power.

> As far as I have read ideas held by indiginous peoples in many parts of
> the world THEY all have ideas about how the world was created. But out
> of them all is there one that is the true idea?

You're missing the point. Non-technological cultures all have creation myths
because they have *no other options*. It's rather like trying to account for
disease before the invention of microscopes.

>
> Jesus Christ in His ministry accepted. approved the Genesis account.
> Matthew 19 : 4 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and
> female.'

And when was the Genesis account written, and by whom? That's right; people
who could not have made any valid observations about evolution because *they
did not have the means to do so*.

>
>> Once one does have the science and technology to investigate further,
>> that
>> explanation is no longer the only one or, indeed, the most probable.
>> However, science does not refute the existence of a creator, per se -
>> only
>> the notion of creation in "kinds", with a limited range of
>> diversification
>> within those "kinds".
>>
> 'A limited range of diversification within kinds' adds up to the very
> large number of different animals and plants that there are in the
> world today. So that 'limitation' is a very limited issue.

The limitation comes in when one asserts that the "kinds" are fixed and
finite, that they are created as such, and that diversification can only
take place within them. And, as numerous people have pointed out, the
creationist term "kinds" is vague and flexible in itself, and gets
conveniently redefined every time it's shown to be inaccurate.


>
> <snip>
>
>> > ....(God) could only create according to His nature and attributes.
>> > That is fundamental to the issue.
>>
>> Then you are indeed offering a very limited and finite god.
>>
> Not a limited and finite God.
> God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable , in his being, wisdom, power,
> holiness, justice, goodness and truth. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)

Then he could quite easily have managed to create the evolutionary process
which has been shown to exist, as opposed to the small and limited
creation-in-kinds which hasn't.

Jani
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-01 23:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Jani wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
<snip>

> > However, (Darwin) did not scientifically prove that evolution occurred among
> > the finches in the Galapogas Islands.
> > Book Review: The Beak of the Finch. Evolution in Real Time
With apologies I made an error when copying the website. Correction
below.
> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/finch.asp

<snip>
>
> You seem to acknowledge that evolution can be observed within these
> poorly-defined "kinds" which are so often mentioned: how do the Galapagos
> finches *not* demonstrate this? I don't think anyone has ever suggested that
> the finches, taken *on their own*, constitute evidence for other aspects of
> the theory of evolution.
>
'Kinds' is the Biblical term from Genesis 1. It could be translated
into modern terms of classification to 'family, genus and species'.
Change can come at those levels, as it did with the finches in the
Galapogas Islands, but it could be an extrapolation from say, reptiles
to birds.

Ghostly coincidence in an unusual fish.
http://www.answersingenesis,org/creation/v15/i4/fish.asp

Similarities don't prove evolution
http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v14/i2/evolution.asp

> (Miracles in the New Testament performed by Jesus Christ) <snip> have nothing to
> do with the *scientific* study of evolution, does it?
>
>From my reading of the New Testament (and others have a similar belief)
Jesus Christ in His earthly life was God in human form. As God, in His
miracles, He demonstrated how He, as part of the Triune God, acted in
the original creation of the Universe and living organisms within it.
That is the parallel I wished to convey.
By the power of His word, not through long periods of time, creation
occurred.
Creation did not occur by a 'long chain of being, one link being added
after another from unicellular to multicellular.
ie. Monkeys did not become men. and from a longer distance in time
'Molecules did not become mechanics', and particles did not become
professors'.

I can accept change from one generation to the next. I am very like my
mother,
One brother was very like my father. Without any other knowledge we
would not have been accepted as brother and sister. Neither of us were
exact replicas of either parent.
That is change within a species or microevolution.
But given enough time for change, evolutionists theorise that changes
occurred from unknown ancestors, even men and mice come from such an
unknown ancestor.

<snip>
>
> > As far as I have read ideas held by indiginous peoples in many parts of
> > the world THEY all have ideas about how the world was created. But out
> > of them all is there one that is the true idea?
>
> You're missing the point. Non-technological cultures all have creation myths
> because they have *no other options*. It's rather like trying to account for
> disease before the invention of microscopes.
>
Could it have been that the creation myths of the indigenous peoples of
the world are corruptions or alternatives to the Biblical account of
the acquisition of many languages (Genesis 11) as those language groups
travelled to other parts of the world and their leaders proposed
different accounts to establish their own identities. That is my own
assumption. I have not read that interpretation.
> >
> > Jesus Christ in His ministry accepted. approved the Genesis account.
> > Matthew 19 : 4 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and
> > female.'
>
> And when was the Genesis account written, and by whom? That's right; people
> who could not have made any valid observations about evolution because *they
> did not have the means to do so*.
>
The Genesis account would have come from an oral tradition which could
have been very accurate considering the overlapping of ages from Adam
to Noah; (Noah's father possibly knew Adam) and from Shem, Noah's son
through to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses. I will search out my
calculations on that chronological time-line.

<snip>

> > 'A limited range of diversification within kinds' adds up to the very
> > large number of different animals and plants that there are in the
> > world today. So that 'limitation' is a very limited issue.
>
> The limitation comes in when one asserts that the "kinds" are fixed and
> finite, that they are created as such, and that diversification can only
> take place within them. And, as numerous people have pointed out, the
> creationist term "kinds" is vague and flexible in itself, and gets
> conveniently redefined every time it's shown to be inaccurate.
>
To some degree the Biblical term 'kinds' is vague, as a more detailed
classification system was not given. But it certainly does not mean
change up a 'tree of life' or change from unknown creatures of a
different type.
> >
> > <snip>

> > Not a limited and finite God.
> > God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable , in his being, wisdom, power,
> > holiness, justice, goodness and truth. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
>
> Then he could quite easily have managed to create the evolutionary process
> which has been shown to exist, as opposed to the small and limited
> creation-in-kinds which hasn't.
>
Through the readings I have done Evolutionists have affirmed their
beliefs that macroevolution occurred. But I am yet to see the 'proof'
that convinces me.
The Evolutionary process, in my opinion, is an extrapolation to suit a
'belief system' about how living organisms developed through millions
of years.
Creation scientists, in their peer-review of the work of evolutionists,
seek to give evidence that scientifically that could not have happened,
despite what evolutionists say about it.

Evolutionists do not want any other research to be given to children
and adults.
Creationists ask that their research be given alongside the research of
the evolutionists.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-05-02 23:43:34 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jani wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
> <snip>
>
>> > However, (Darwin) did not scientifically prove that evolution occurred
>> > among
>> > the finches in the Galapogas Islands.
>> > Book Review: The Beak of the Finch. Evolution in Real Time
> With apologies I made an error when copying the website. Correction
> below.
>> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/finch.asp

As I said, no-one suggests that the Galapagos finches are, per se, any proof
positive of evolution. However, the article you cite certainly demonstrates
a remarkable lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. He says, for
instance,

"The Grants not only observed such hybridization between species of finches
which did not interbreed as a rule, but that under certain conditions the
hybrids appeared to be fitter than either of the parent populations. I was
surprised when the book hinted that here we were approaching the answer to
the mystery of the origin of species. Perhaps the obvious needs to be
restated; the mingling of two sets of pre-existing information can scarcely
tell one anything about the ultimate origin of that information."

He is conflating the origin of "information" with the origin of speciation -
two different things. It sounds to me as if the "hint" was to do with the
strength and reproductive capacity of the hybrid generation, which is
relevant to speciation, but not to ultimate origins.

Then we have:

"Evolutionists have long argued the opposite-that evolution is invisible in
the short term, but would become visible if we had enough time. Yet
according to Weiner, we can see evolution happening in the (very) short
term, but any longer and it becomes 'invisible'! The mind boggles at how
evolutionists can be blind to this inconsistency."

The "short term" is the kind of easily measurable change you might see in
the dark/light moths, who adapted rapidly to camouflaging themselves against
light, then dark, then light stonework, as pollution levels changed.
Measuring changes in the organisms which eventually gave rise to moths,
however, would take much longer. Just as measuring the changes which gave
rise to birds (and hence, to finches) would take much longer. The two
processes don't contradict one another, but the author chooses to pretend
that they do.

And then he says:

" ... observations showing rapid selection/speciation are helpful to the
creation model, which has only a relatively short time in which post-Flood
adaptive radiation/speciation must have occurred"

which again ignores the fact that rapid adaptations are not what
evolutionary theory is based upon. You can certainly say that there have
been many adaptations within various species over the past 4,000 years or
whatever, but that does nothing to address the issue of what was happening
*before* that very brief period.

>
> <snip>
>>
>> You seem to acknowledge that evolution can be observed within these
>> poorly-defined "kinds" which are so often mentioned: how do the Galapagos
>> finches *not* demonstrate this? I don't think anyone has ever suggested
>> that
>> the finches, taken *on their own*, constitute evidence for other aspects
>> of
>> the theory of evolution.
>>
> 'Kinds' is the Biblical term from Genesis 1. It could be translated
> into modern terms of classification to 'family, genus and species'.
> Change can come at those levels, as it did with the finches in the
> Galapogas Islands, but it could be an extrapolation from say, reptiles
> to birds.

Yes, exactly, it's poorly defined.
>
> Ghostly coincidence in an unusual fish.
> http://www.answersingenesis,org/creation/v15/i4/fish.asp

Link doesn't work.
>
> Similarities don't prove evolution
> http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v14/i2/evolution.asp

Link doesn't work.
>
>> (Miracles in the New Testament performed by Jesus Christ) <snip> have
>> nothing to
>> do with the *scientific* study of evolution, does it?
>>
>>From my reading of the New Testament (and others have a similar belief)
> Jesus Christ in His earthly life was God in human form. As God, in His
> miracles, He demonstrated how He, as part of the Triune God, acted in
> the original creation of the Universe and living organisms within it.
> That is the parallel I wished to convey.

That's an interesting interpretation. So you're saying that the miracles
were performed solely to "prove" creationism?


> By the power of His word, not through long periods of time, creation
> occurred.

Well, if we're being picky, turning water into wine or making more bread and
fishes isn't creating anything new; it's speeding up an existing process in
the first instance, and cloning an existing organic commodity in the second.


> Creation did not occur by a 'long chain of being, one link being added
> after another from unicellular to multicellular.
> ie. Monkeys did not become men. and from a longer distance in time
> 'Molecules did not become mechanics', and particles did not become
> professors'.

Gladys, does it never actually get through to you that no-one is saying
"particles become professors", or even "monkeys become men"?


> I can accept change from one generation to the next. I am very like my
> mother,
> One brother was very like my father. Without any other knowledge we
> would not have been accepted as brother and sister. Neither of us were
> exact replicas of either parent.
> That is change within a species or microevolution.

No, it's not, otherwise every individual would be a species all of their
own. Presumably you and your family still consider yourselves homo sapiens.


> But given enough time for change, evolutionists theorise that changes
> occurred from unknown ancestors, even men and mice come from such an
> unknown ancestor.

Have a look at the skulls which Sean keeps asking you to look at. Do you
think that your family came from one or the other, or would there be some
undiscovered skull somewhere which looks *exactly* like the current skulls
of the Swager family? And that's only going a short way back, in
evolutionary terms, since those skulls date from a point where primates were
clearly primates, and not mice.


>
> <snip>
>>
>> > As far as I have read ideas held by indiginous peoples in many parts of
>> > the world THEY all have ideas about how the world was created. But out
>> > of them all is there one that is the true idea?
>>
>> You're missing the point. Non-technological cultures all have creation
>> myths
>> because they have *no other options*. It's rather like trying to account
>> for
>> disease before the invention of microscopes.
>>
> Could it have been that the creation myths of the indigenous peoples of
> the world are corruptions or alternatives to the Biblical account of
> the acquisition of many languages (Genesis 11) as those language groups
> travelled to other parts of the world and their leaders proposed
> different accounts to establish their own identities. That is my own
> assumption. I have not read that interpretation.

As far as I know, there is no evidence at all to indicate that the
Australian indigenous people ever encountered the Jewish creation myths
before they developed their own.


>> >
>> > Jesus Christ in His ministry accepted. approved the Genesis account.
>> > Matthew 19 : 4 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and
>> > female.'
>>
>> And when was the Genesis account written, and by whom? That's right;
>> people
>> who could not have made any valid observations about evolution because
>> *they
>> did not have the means to do so*.
>>
> The Genesis account would have come from an oral tradition which could
> have been very accurate considering the overlapping of ages from Adam
> to Noah; (Noah's father possibly knew Adam) and from Shem, Noah's son
> through to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses. I will search out my
> calculations on that chronological time-line.

Irrelevant; your timeline simply doesn't match the dating of fossils. Even
an oral tradition would have derived from earlier civilisations, such as the
Sumerians, who were also quite clearly "modern humans" by that time.
>
> <snip>
>
>> > 'A limited range of diversification within kinds' adds up to the very
>> > large number of different animals and plants that there are in the
>> > world today. So that 'limitation' is a very limited issue.
>>
>> The limitation comes in when one asserts that the "kinds" are fixed and
>> finite, that they are created as such, and that diversification can only
>> take place within them. And, as numerous people have pointed out, the
>> creationist term "kinds" is vague and flexible in itself, and gets
>> conveniently redefined every time it's shown to be inaccurate.
>>
> To some degree the Biblical term 'kinds' is vague, as a more detailed
> classification system was not given. But it certainly does not mean
> change up a 'tree of life' or change from unknown creatures of a
> different type.

Then if it's vague, it shouldn't be applied scientifically, should it?


>> > <snip>
>
>> > Not a limited and finite God.
>> > God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable , in his being, wisdom, power,
>> > holiness, justice, goodness and truth. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
>>
>> Then he could quite easily have managed to create the evolutionary
>> process
>> which has been shown to exist, as opposed to the small and limited
>> creation-in-kinds which hasn't.
>>
> Through the readings I have done Evolutionists have affirmed their
> beliefs that macroevolution occurred. But I am yet to see the 'proof'
> that convinces me.

That's because you confine your reading to creationist material. Of course
you won't see any "proof", if you won't look at the evidence.


> The Evolutionary process, in my opinion, is an extrapolation to suit a
> 'belief system' about how living organisms developed through millions
> of years.

It's a "belief system" which has an awful lot of evidence to support it.
Creationism has mythology.


> Creation scientists, in their peer-review of the work of evolutionists,
> seek to give evidence that scientifically that could not have happened,
> despite what evolutionists say about it.

And, as yet, they haven't offered any such evidence.


>
> Evolutionists do not want any other research to be given to children
> and adults.
> Creationists ask that their research be given alongside the research of
> the evolutionists.

No, scientists require scientific research to be given alongside scientific
research. In one of your previous posts, you mentioned a chap who was
supposedly highly respected as a "creation scientist". He was actually an
expert on spinal anatomy and medicine, and *that* was why he was respected.
The fact that he thought the human spine had been created, as-is, a few
thousand years ago was unimportant, because his actual research was sound.
He could have believed in the Great Pink Unicorn, for all anyone cared, but
he had the sense to keep his personal delusions out of his research.
"Creation scientists" don't.

Jani
"Mark T"
2006-05-03 02:44:50 UTC
Permalink
"Jani" wrote:

> As far as I know, there is no evidence at all to indicate that the
> Australian indigenous people ever encountered the Jewish creation myths
> before they developed their own.

Exactly! They also predate the Jewish myths.


> Creationism has mythology.

Creationism IS mythology.


>> Creationists ask that their research be given alongside the research of
>> the evolutionists.
>
> No, scientists require scientific research to be given alongside
> scientific research.

The majority of Creationists don't do any research! Looking up a bible
verse is not scientific research!!!!


> In one of your previous posts, you mentioned a chap who was supposedly
> highly respected as a "creation scientist".


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creationists Whose Credentials are Suspicious
By Michael Cranford

The source of the information on colleges and universities is "Bear's Guide
to Earning Non-Traditional College Degrees," 10th Ed. Where used below, the
word "Accreditation" refers to accreditation by one of the recognized
Regional Accrediting Agencies, or by the (legitimate) American Association
of Bible Colleges. California has a three tier system: At the low end are
"Authorized" schools. More highly scrutinized are "Approved" schools.
"Accredited" schools are accredited by the regional Accrediting Agency.

Dr. Carl Baugh, a fundamentalist Missouri Baptist minister with no
scientific background, claims to be an archaeologist. He also claims to have
a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology in Glendale. When a
local skeptic checked with the primary organization responsible for
accreditation (The Western Association of Schools and Colleges), he was
informed that this "graduate school" has not been accredited. Reverend Baugh
claims to have found "human" footprints that measure nearly forty inches
from heel to toe.
California Graduate School of Theology is "Approved" by the state of
California (a step up from "Authorized.") but is not accredited. All degrees
are in theology. Credit is given for "experiential learning." There is more
information about Baugh's degrees here.
Dr. Richard Bliss, a member of the ICR staff, has claimed to have a D.Ed.
from the University of Sarasota located in Florida. In the 1984 spring issue
of "Scientific Integrity", William V. Mayer pointed out that this university
has been characterized by the "Philadelphia Inquirer" as a diploma mill in a
Florida motel (see Lovejoy's College Catalog). Bliss has accused
evolutionary scientists of "intellectual dishonesty". He also claims to be
"a recognized expert in the field of science education" and is co-author of
a "two-model" book that is being pushed for use in the public school system.
Bear lists the "University of Sarasota" as a "short residency" (total
residency may be as short as six weeks) school. The school is the equivalent
of California "Approved," but is not accredited.
Dr. Clifford Burdick of the CSRC (Creation Science Research Center) is a
"flood" geologist who has spent forty years trying to prove that giant
humans once roamed the earth and even mingled with the dinosaurs. Burdick
has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences
(Phoenix, Arizona) in the Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. However, the
State of Arizona Board of Regents, the University of Arizona Department of
Geology, and the Arizona State Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology have
never heard of this "university."
Bear hasn't heard of this school either. There appears to be a "University
of Psychic Sciences," in National City, California.
Dr. Kelly Segraves, director of the CSRC, listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc.
on the 1975 CSRC letterhead. After having it called into question, Segraves
dropped the D.Sc. in 1981 and now lists "D.R.E." in its place. Segraves has
claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from Christian University, yet a computer
search indicated that the only university with that name is located in
Jakarta, Indonesia. The next closest match is a Bible College called Indiana
Christian University (see below). Segraves claims to have received his M.A.
from Sequoia University in 1972 but Bette Chambers discovered that there is
no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College in California,
which only offers two year associate degrees and has no record of any
student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a doctorate of religious
education and does not qualify as a scientific degree.
There are or were several "National Christian University" in Richardson
(Texas), Dallas, and apparently Oklahoma City and/or Missouri. Bear can
offer no other information, except that "National Christian" appears on a
European list of degree mills. There is a "Christian International
University" in Phoenix, Arizona (which was established in Texas in 1967, and
moved to Arizona in 1977 when "the Lord provided a central home"). The only
staff member listed as having a Doctorate is the President, whose degree is
from National Christian University. CIU is the the equivalent of California
"Authorized," but not Accredited.
Sequoia University did exist, in California and Oklahoma, but a judge in Los
Angeles, in 1984, issued a permanent injunction to cease operations "until
it complies with the state education laws." The "university" offered degrees
in osteopathic medicine, religious studies, hydrotherapy, and physical
sciences.

Dr. Harold S. Slusher of the ICR claims to have an honorary D.Sc. from
Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. from Columbia Pacific University.
Robert J. Schadewald recently discovered that Indiana Christian University
is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department, and
Columbia Pacific University is nonaccredited.
"Indiana Christian University" is unknown to Bear. Columbia Pacific
University in San Rafael, California is California "Approved," but not
Accredited. Of listed faculty, 23% have their own Doctorate from Columbia
Pacific University.

from http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/credenti.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CREATION SCIENCE QUIZ

Objective: Using the Holy Bible as your guide, correctly answer each of the
following scientific questions. After you are finished, check your answers
by by clicking here


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Why are there clouds in the sky?
A. Heat causes water on the Earth to condense and rise into the atmosphere
where it forms clouds.
B. Clouds are God's footprints in Heaven and are made up of the dust from
his feet.


2. Why are some people blind, deaf, dumb or handicapped in some other way?

A. These deficiencies are deliberately inflicted on some people by God.
B. Most of these problems are caused by defects in the genetic make-up of an
individual which are random and presently inexplicable.


3. What causes thunder and lightning?

A. God's will. Thunder is the sound of his bellowing voice. Lightning is a
deadly force He deliberately hurls at various places.
B. They are the product of clouds colliding. Thunder is the sound the make
and lightning is the electrical current produced.


4. Why do we sometimes see rainbows?

A. The colors are caused by the refraction of light which is inherent in the
aftermath of a large downfall of rain.
B. God has them occur periodically to remind Him that He has promised not to
brutally kill all the men, women, children and unborn children of the Earth
again.


5. What causes tornadoes to form?

A. High and low pressure weather fronts collide, causing a whilrwind to form
in the upper atmosphere which sometimes extends to the ground.
B. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result, as
opposed to the somewhat slower means of plagues and pestilence.


6. Why are some women unable to have children?

A. It is their punishment for being adulterers (whether they admit the sin
or not).
B. It is the product of fallopian tubes that are not fully developed or
complications with the uterus that are the result of various medical
phenomena.


7. What causes earthquakes?

A. Intense heat in the Earth's core causes platelets to collide, thereby
shaking and splitting the ground above.
B. God inflicts earthquakes on sinners when he is really angry.


8. Why do rivers and springs sometimes dry up?

A. Quite simply, this is the product of the sin of those nearby.
B. The condensation of moisture from the bodies of water into the atmosphere
outstrips the amount of rain needed to replenish the bodies.


9. Why do certain areas of the world experience drought?

A. There is an imbalance between water evaporation and rainfall, often
caused by a lack of proximity to substantial bodies of water.
B. This is one of God's many punishments for sin.


10. Why are some men afflicted with hemorrhoids?

A. The affliction is yet another of God's countless methods of punishing
sinners.
B. Hemorrhoids occur when veins in the rectum enlarge from straining or
pressure.


from http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-03 05:20:12 UTC
Permalink
"Mark T" wrote:
> "Jani" wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, there is no evidence at all to indicate that the
> > Australian indigenous people ever encountered the Jewish creation myths
> > before they developed their own.
>
>From where on the Asian-European contintent did the Aborigines migrate
before arriving in Australia by a land-bridge possibly from the areas
that are now called Malayasia, Indonesia and into Australia?
Were they just brute savages when they arrived so they had not
developed technologies as were used in the Middle East?
Or were they highly intelligent so they were enabled use the
environment in their tribal life?

>From my contact with Aborigines I would accept that the latter was the
situation. Their 200 + years contact with those from Britain and Europe
has meant that many have been been able to have the benefits of the
present technological age. Remember David Unaipon, an Aborigine, who is
featured on the $50 Australian money, had contact with Christian
missionaries and became an inventor.
But that is not the information that is given in schools and the media.

Yes, granted that there are some Aborigines who are experiencing
difficulties.

<snip>

> The majority of Creationists don't do any research! Looking up a bible
> verse is not scientific research!!!!
>
Creationists do use Bible verses, I agree. But that is only a small
part of their articles.
>
Creation scientists and other biographie sof interest.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
>
> > In one of your previous posts, you mentioned a chap who was supposedly
> > highly respected as a "creation scientist".
>
I have been told by a member of the staff of AiG (Australia) that
their scientists have degrees from accredited Tertiary institutions.
If, in America, that has not been/ is not the practise they can answer
for themselves.
>
I would think that if evolutionists control the accreditation of
Tertiary institutions in the USA
that they would not accredit any Tertiary establishment that taught
contrary to their beliefs.
Tell me if that would be correct or not.

But don't let it be said that (secular - no Christian teaching given)
Tertiary Institutions always have the correct answers. They have
findings that are made by imperfect humans in the context of the
environment in which they work. When they find they have made mistakes
they can make adjustments and present what they then consider to be the
correct information, as from their own research (in some instances from
ideas given by students or others) to the public. This is an aspect of
modern-day media use by Tertiary lecturers and researchers.

I have been told by a person in a relatively high position in the NSW
education system that improvements in teaching methods and resources
in the post-war years came from staff in the Infants Departments of
Public Schools.
I was teaching an eclectic approach to Reading from the mid 1950's, but
it was only in 1995 that University academics stated in the media that
'Phonics was the way to go!' (not exactlly correct - 'eclectic' is the
better term).

I am aware that the above information does not contribute to the issues
in this thread, but I present it to indicate that although I have
chosen to give Creationist information I am not 'a moron' - a term you
have used in denigration of anyone who does not agree with your
beliefs.
<snip>
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
2006-05-02 02:19:01 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
> stages.
> When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied
instantly.

That was no miracle Gladys. I have been in a situation where 250
people were fed with 140 meals. On a plane returning from two weeks in
NSW fighting fires the steward announced that due to industrial
problems there were only 140 meals on board, and would anyone not
really ravenous please consider not taking a meal so that others who
wanted to eat would not miss out. They passed out the meals and then
had to beg people to take the 63 meals that were left over. One of the
two meal choices was fish and came with a bread roll. :-)

Theo
* irenic *
2006-05-02 02:22:47 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:pkz5g.20605$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
>> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
>> stages.
>> When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied
> instantly.
>
> That was no miracle Gladys. I have been in a situation where 250
> people were fed with 140 meals. On a plane returning from two weeks in
> NSW fighting fires the steward announced that due to industrial
> problems there were only 140 meals on board, and would anyone not
> really ravenous please consider not taking a meal so that others who
> wanted to eat would not miss out. They passed out the meals and then
> had to beg people to take the 63 meals that were left over. One of the
> two meal choices was fish and came with a bread roll. :-)
>
> Theo


William barclay and other commentators have the opposite motivation for this
miracle: everyone else except the little boy was hiding their 'grub' and
were shamed into releasing it for others :-)

--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

"If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil
cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy
a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,000 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-02 04:18:35 UTC
Permalink
* irenic * wrote:

> > "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
> >
> >> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
> >> stages. When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied
> > > instantly.
> >
<snip>
> >
> William Barclay and other commentators have the opposite motivation for this
> miracle: everyone else except the little boy was hiding their 'grub' and
> were shamed into releasing it for others :-)
>
I can recall that about the 1970's there was featured in the media more
humanistic reasons for those actions that were considered to be
miracles in the Bible.
However, that was human reasoning that went against the facts as given
in the Bible.

It would be easy to assume in the above a human reason for the sudden
supply of food, but there could not have been a human reason when Jesus
turned the water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee. The
host of the party could not have quickly brought in wine barrels from
his store and substituted them.
Consider also the healing miracles - the deaf, blind, lame. the leper,
the healing of the sick and diseased, Peter's mother-in-law, the
paralytic, the lame, the man with the withered hand, the High Priest's
servant's ear, raising from the dead of the son of widow of Nain,
restoring sanity to the insane, the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
Are there human explanations for all of those and more?

I have gone to a website on William Barclay
http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm

William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.

I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.

The divisions of Christianity with doctrinal differences that must be
accepted for membership within the many denonminations must be
confusing to many people.
I have promoted the idea of Christian denominations within an area
working together on a consensus of belief and the use of all buildings
and resources as one community of faith.
A children's holiday programme operated on that basis for about eight
years, but it did not develop into the commitment of all Christians on
a full-time basis.
Gladys Swager
* irenic *
2006-05-02 05:52:17 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> * irenic * wrote:
<>
> I have gone to a website on William Barclay
> http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
>
> William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
> that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
>
> I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
> those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.

Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards universalism
Gladys!

--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

"If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil
cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy
a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,000 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-02 21:35:01 UTC
Permalink
* irenic * wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I have gone to a website on William Barclay
> > http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
> >
> > William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
> > that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
> > I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
> > those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
>
> Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards universalism

Your criticism of 'fellow-creationists' may not be justified.
I have promoted knowledge of Creationism as I believe the scientists
involved in that study have just as much right to be heard as the
Evolutionary scientists (atheistic or theistic) because many of them
have as high Tertiary and research qualifications.
There's a lot I can't understand on both sides of that issue because I
do not have the Tertiary studies in the many science disciplines
involved in the issue.
I may be 'an unsuspecting layperson' to some, but I am 'an interested
layperson' who would like to see the issue resolved.

For confirmation of his statement (above) William Barclay used the
following New Testament texts among others:-
John 12 : 32 (Jesus) "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw
ALLl men to myself"
Romans 11 : 32 (Paul) God has consigned ALL men to disobedience that he
may have
mercy on ALL.
1 Corinthians 15 : 22 (Paul) As in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ
shall ALL be made alive.

But compare: John 3 : 16 (Jesus) For God so loved the world that He
gave His only
begotten Son, so
that
WHOEVER BELIEVES
IN HIM
shall not
perish, but (shall) have Eternal Life.
Therefore, personal faith In Jesus Christ, God's Son (God in human
form) is a necessary pre-requistive for having Eternal Life. Jesus was
not saying that by His life, death and resurrection that Eternal Life
was given automatically to all persons.

As I was searching through the Internet I came across the following:-

"The only solution would be for God Himself to take on full humanity
and willingly offer Himself in our place. Because He is fully God He is
innocent and can therefore take upon Himself another's punishment.
Because He is fully human, He could legitimately offer himself in the
place of other humans.

Having offered Himself as a once-for-all sacrifice God demonstrated
that Jesus (God in human form) did not have any sin himself by raising
him from the dead. Jesus had paid the penalty for sin (death) and
having done so, offers the payment to all those who will claim it for
themselves. (Salvation by faith, not works lest any should boast!)

This means that those who wish to come to God have a choice. Accept the
gift of Jesus to take the penalty on our behalf, OR accept that penalty
yourself. God earnestly desires that all be saved from eternal death,
but He will respect your decision not to accept the offer."
Paul Strecker, June 18, 2005 ( I trust that Paul will not mind me
reposting his comments which were given in response to a Sydney Morning
Herald debate between Aig Creationists and Skeptics. I'll look up the
website and post it later this morning.

Although I was christened in a Roman Catholic Church, from the age of
three years I attended in Protestant Evangelical denominations, (a
member of two of them), over a period of about forty-five years.
At the age of 12 it was thought that I accepted Jesus as my Saviour,
but really, in hindsight, I actually accepted Him as the most wonderful
man that had ever lived.
As a result I believed that to be a Christian I had to be perfect. I
had to come to an understanding that it was through Jesus Christ that I
had perfection in God's sight.

As a non-denominational Christian for the last almost thirty-one years
I have given thought to the problems associated with the
institutionalisation of the Christian faith as men have imposed their
ideas, sometimes with the best intentions of giving understandings to
it.

The divisions within Christianity have meant confusion to many
non-Christians and a waste of moneys in the duplication of services
and resources.

I have found in the Scripture Union/ Inter-Schools Christian
Fellowships movement Christian service, which although supporting
denominations, has an aspect which transcends denominationalism which
appeals to me. There are also other inter-denominational organisations.


Before I was placed on what came to be called Stress Leave until
retirement from the NSW Department of Education in 1975, I was
introduced to a new type of Social Studies teaching - a concept method
ie what are the attributes that make an area of land a park, a paddock,
open space, etc. I transferred that idea to the Christian faith and
thought of the basic concepts of the Christian faith. It seemed to me
that if the two ideas given by Jesus as He gave a summary of the Ten
Commandments - love God & love others - were put at the top of two
columns and under them were listed what was necessary to meet the
essentails of both there could be a better understanding of Christ's
teachings that could lead to Christians resolving differences and
working together.

That could be a way for Christians to move from what I have come to
call 'a four-fence meantality of denominationalism 'to a wider
understanding of Jesus Christ's commission 'to go and teach ALL
nations....whatsover I have commanded you,......I am with you always,
even to the end of the world.' Matthew 28 : 19 - 20
Gladys Swager
* irenic *
2006-05-03 06:38:29 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>* irenic * wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > I have gone to a website on William Barclay
>> > http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
>> >
>> > William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
>> > that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
>> > I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
>> > those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
>>
>> Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards
>> universalism
>
> Your criticism of 'fellow-creationists' may not be justified.

I'd assert that the creationist mindset (and the fundamentalist and/or
premillennialist mindset for that matter) does not easily live with
cognitive dissonance... And I've not ever met one creationist who is a
universalist: two different hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures are
required to hold these two broad positions

For more on universalism visit

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/keyword/u-2.htm

--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

"If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil
cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy
a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,000 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-04 00:52:55 UTC
Permalink
* irenic * wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
>
> I'd assert that the creationist mindset (and the fundamentalist and/or
> premillennialist mindset for that matter) does not easily live with
> cognitive dissonance... And I've not ever met one creationist who is a
> universalist: two different hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures are
> required to hold these two broad positions
>
Cognitive dissonance has to do with disagreements about knowledge. That
would seem to me to be the simplest defintion. In life we receive
information from many sources. In today's modern world the number of
the sources far exceeds the number that existed in the pre TV/
computer-Internet years.

It is not always easy to determine what is THE TRUTH. I advise the
students who come to me for tutoring to research as much as they can in
the time available to them (determined by other assignments and time
for 'family, friends, fun and games' as I often say is very important
and a vital part of their education). Write their assignment, which
although teachers might disagree on ideological grounds it should be
judged on literary merit and discussions and investigations can be made
later, even in later adult years to determine TRUTH. I don't agree with
a political agenda that is determining some content, especially in
Secondary education.

I don't like the term 'fundamentalist' especially as it has been used
in denigration in some of the postings in this newsgroup. There is
knowledge that is 'fundamental' in every aspect of life - the
intellectual knowledge about who we are, what we can do, and the
ultimate purpose of being - is there an eternal destiny for us as
humans?
I attended in an evangelical Christian tradition for just over forty
years. If some choose to call that fundamentalist, that is their idea.

As I chose Infants Teaching I worked with simple ideas. I also learnt
from another teacher that it had been discovered in the late 1950's
that children could understand concepts that had once been thought to
be too difficult for them if the information was given in language they
could understand.

That concept can be applied to theological information, that can be
expressed in higher language forms because of Tertiary level
training.of clergy.
Jesus, although He was God in human form communicated in the
understandings of those who listened to Him.

As for Creationism I became involved because of my understandings of
the attributes of living things and reasoned that there had to be a
supernatural living Creator and began to receive Creation literature.
In this Newsgroup I choose to present the Creation Scientists' views,
not realising at first, that that would bring much criticism onto me.

As I read your posting I remember a tract that I read a little over 50
years ago. It was about whether Christians would be taken out of the
world before or after the Tribulation period. I must admit I found it
very confusing and decided that I would come to understand later.
It was towards the end of 1971. There had been a number of stressful
situations in the school in which I was teaching and as we prepared for
the Christmas party the worst of them happened. I went into a state of
traumatic shock - can happen so quickly with no means of prevention.
I was given a small glass of brandy and went into a traumatic sleep in
which I was in a very desolate place. A voice was saying, "Do you want
the Christains to be taken out of the world before or after the
Tribulation?." I reasoned that if Christians were taken out of the
world before the Tribulation that there would be no one to tell those
who were left about (the saving gospel of) Jesus Christ. But then,
dreading what the Tribulation would be if it happened in my lifetime, I
tried to reason that there would be books and the Bible in libraries
and homes that those left would find. But as that didn't really appeal
to me I settled on Christians being left through that period. I woke
and did not remember my dream until years later.

When I had my first country teaching appointment I knew 'homesickness'
for the first time in my life. It was quite a devastating experience
for about two weeks. Shortly after I had a dream in which I was walking
down a path on my parents' farm when I saw a wonderful light above me
in the sky and in the centre was Jesus Christ. He extended His hand and
beckoned me to rise to Him. I complained that I couldn't. Then I found
myself rising to Him. He took me to my High school and we walked the
corridors together. I woke with no memory of the dream, again until
years later. But what I am writing is true.

I would like to accept that Universalism could be. But I am aware that
God respects our decisions. I am also aware that the decisions we make
can be determined by past experiences including the information that is
given us by others.

Mark T, in one of his postings, in his strident (I must use that word)
- harsh - criticism of those he disparages as 'fundamentalists as being
very accepting and not questioning.
As a teenager I was told by a Christian pastor that 'Questioning is
doubting and doubtling is a sin. Christians have the Holy Spirit and He
will guide us.' I tended not to question from then on in my life. But
I have come to realise that the pastor being in, possibly, his first
appointment after Theological training was feeling extremely vulnerable
and what he was saying was really a defense mechanism to stop questions
that he had not learnt how to answer. He may have taken a different
attitude later in his career.

I believe that Christian leaders of all denominations must come to a
consensus, as far as that is possible, about the Christian faith,
instead of relying
exclusively on the received doctrines of their denomination.
It must be determined when man's ideas have been superimposed on the
basic concepts that Jesus taught as His life was to fulfill the
prophecies of the Old Testament - the Law that had been given though
Moses and the Temple sacrifices,
- so that God's love could be given throughout the world.

One further matter, from a previous posting that I found in the
Scripture Union /
Inter-School Christian Fellowship movement a unity in Christian
service, I would like to make it clear that because of the work with
school children there is no teaching on whether Creationism or Theistic
Evolution is correct. That is information that can be investigated
later in life.

> For more on universalism visit
>
> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/keyword/u-2.htm
>
You have given so many links in that website that it will take quite a
time to investigate them all.
The one I read through was about Halloween. It may be fun, but as most
children have a lot of advantages today it would be better for them to
think of how they can help children in need in other parts of the world
rather asking for more for themselves, even if it is only lollies from
neighbours. And there is the danger od them being molested.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-05-06 00:45:36 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[]

> The one I read through was about Halloween. It may be fun, but as most
> children have a lot of advantages today it would be better for them to
> think of how they can help children in need in other parts of the world
> rather asking for more for themselves, even if it is only lollies from
> neighbours.

A rather nice charity initiative for children which I saw a while back was a
money-box based on their own lifestyle: if you had three meals a day, you
put a penny in; hot and cold running water, five pence; more than two pairs
of shoes, ten pence, and so on. Not the kind of thing you can do at school
without some modifications, but very good for getting them to think a bit
more critically about the advantages they take for granted.



>And there is the danger od them being molested.

Children in large groups going round knocking on neighbours' doors are
probably at the lowest risk of being molested. The highest incidence of
child abuse involves adults known to the child, in situations where the
child can be isolated from others. Parents and step-parents tend to be high
on the list, but adults in positions of authority - especially in religious
social institutions - are not far behind.

Jani
Jani
2006-05-02 22:36:34 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:pkz5g.20605$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
>> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in
>> stages.
>> When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied
> instantly.
>
> That was no miracle Gladys. I have been in a situation where 250
> people were fed with 140 meals. On a plane returning from two weeks in
> NSW fighting fires the steward announced that due to industrial
> problems there were only 140 meals on board, and would anyone not
> really ravenous please consider not taking a meal so that others who
> wanted to eat would not miss out. They passed out the meals and then
> had to beg people to take the 63 meals that were left over. One of the
> two meal choices was fish and came with a bread roll. :-)

On a much smaller scale, I emptied out my toaster this morning in the course
of spring-cleaning the kitchen, and the crumbs were quite sufficient to make
an entire barmcake (that's a fairly sizable individual bread-roll, for you
furriners :)

I fully expect the spring-cleaning of the freezer to yield a similar result,
as regards fragmented fish-fingers ...

Jani
Epigram
2006-05-03 02:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Gladys, if one of my students wrote an essay and only quoted from the
web, I'd fail them. Wouldn't you?

Toby.

On 04/29/2006 12:59:17 "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Jani wrote:

>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>>> OR is it that you do not want to consider that evolution following the
>>> ideas of Darwinian natural selection was taken beyond its natural
>>> boundaries - ie. beyond the species?

>>> Could it have been that Darwin felt a strong compulsion to 'prove
>>> himself' in his family that was quite gifted academically - and after
>>> not continuing his early studies in medicine and theology appeared as
>>> somewhat of a misfit? Did he consciously or subconsciously long for
>>> fame?

>> Talk about a non sequitor ....

> non sequitor = does not follow. I was putting the idea that Darwin had
> reasons within his own life's experiences for taking the course that he
> did.

>> in any case, Darwin's theories are not regarded as set in stone, and have
>> been modified > and revised repeatedly as new data comes to light.

> A quote from the writings of Charles Darwin 1876 - haven't listed the
> website in my notes.

> "In October 1838, ......I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> 'Population'. and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> existence which everywhere goes on.... it at once struck me that under
> these circumstances favourable variation would tend to be preserved and
> unfavourable ones to be destroyed. THE RESULT OF THIS WOULD BE THE
> FORMATION OF A NEW SPECIES. (Capitalisation mine) Here, then I had at last
> got a theory by which to work."

> Darwin had a theory on which to work - a theory that went back to the
> ancient Greeks. What his work appeared to him to be was to provide the
> scientific evidence. However, he did not scientifically prove that
> evolution occurred among the finches in the Galapogas Islands.

> Book Review: The Beak of the Finch. Evolution in Real Time by Jonathan
> Weiner, Random House 1994
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/finch.asp

> Scientific Facts Against Evolution - Wonders of Design
> http://evolution-facts.org/nature1.htm

>>>>> Could Jesus Christ, one within the Triune God, have created by a
>>>>> 'bits-and pieces' process? To me that just does not add up
>>>>> considering His miracles recorded in the New Testament.

>>>> Yes, he could have. If you deny that he *could* have done this, aren't
>>>> you denying his omnipotence? Whether or not it "adds up" to you is,
>>>> again, irrelevant.

>>> But it needs to be thought through to a logical conclusion.

> Jesus Christ, in the performance of His miracles did not work in stages.
> When feeding the 5000 peoples bread and fish were multiplied instantly.
> When turning water into wine at the marriage celebrations in Cana the best
> wine came out instantly. In only one instant of restoring the sight to the
> blind was there two stages in the miracle - partial sight to full sight
> and that was also in a very short time.

>> And the logical conclusion, if one acknowledges the existence of a
>> creator in the first place, is that an omnipotent god *could* have done
>> either. All the evidence, however, points to the evolutionary process as
>> the way it *did* happen.

> The logical conclusion from the miracles of Jesus, God in human flesh, is
> that He did not need very long periods of time. In his gospel John
> teaches that Jesus - pre-incarnate - created at the beginning of the
> universe. ("Incarnation" - from the Latin, meaning "becoming flesh" that
> is "becoming human". The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the
> Eternal Son of God (Trinity) became human, and that He did so without in
> any manner or degree diminishing His divine nature. - Zondervan Bible
> Dictionary

>> Evolution does not address the question of origins, only of diversity.

> Evolutionists (atheistic) do 'not address the question of origins' - that
> is true. They can't/won't because they would have to bring in a basic
> scientific belief that 'living produces living ie. living does not come
> from non-living. So the least said on that issue the better!

>> All religions have creation myths. This is not surprising, considering
>> that in a non-technological culture, people can only observe what is
>> around them - namely, diversity in the natural world - and account for it
>> within the limits of their own knowledge and understanding. Since they
>> do not have the means to investigate all the lengthy, gradual processes
>> which preceded their current environment, or even to comprehend the
>> time-scale involved, the only sensible explanation *to them* is that the
>> world must have been created as-is by some superior power.

> As far as I have read ideas held by indiginous peoples in many parts of
> the world THEY all have ideas about how the world was created. But out of
> them all is there one that is the true idea?

> Jesus Christ in His ministry accepted. approved the Genesis account.
> Matthew 19 : 4 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.'

>> Once one does have the science and technology to investigate further,
>> that explanation is no longer the only one or, indeed, the most probable.
>> However, science does not refute the existence of a creator, per se -
>> only the notion of creation in "kinds", with a limited range of
>> diversification within those "kinds".

> 'A limited range of diversification within kinds' adds up to the very
> large number of different animals and plants that there are in the world
> today. So that 'limitation' is a very limited issue.

>>> ....(God) could only create according to His nature and attributes. That
>>> is fundamental to the issue.

>> Then you are indeed offering a very limited and finite god.

> Not a limited and finite God. God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable , in
> his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.
> (Westminster Shorter Catechism) Gladys Swager
--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-03 05:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Epigram wrote:
> Gladys, if one of my students wrote an essay and only quoted from the
> web, I'd fail them. Wouldn't you?
>
<snip>
>
No!. Some students only have the Internet as their resource, and even
that has been quite expensive for their parents to provide - much, much
more costly than the resources that were available to me in school and
teacher training. School and Public Libraries do not always provide the
books that are required or have them in so few numbers that only those
who borrow first have access to the additional information.

The Research style of study that is now in use relieves teachers and
lecturers from a certain amount of face-to-face teaching that was the
norm in my younger years of study and teaching.

The fact is that with the Internet school students, as well as myself,
have a very large number of articles that we can use to meet our
purposes. That may not be completely satisfactory to you, but remember
that time constraints restrict the amount of work that students can do.


>From the studies I did for my Diploma of Teaching - Special Education
(1978 - 1981) it is possible for lecturers to ask for/demand the texts
that they approve.
When I was the first person to motivate a language-disadvantaged 5 year
old to utter a word on cue the use of a 1961 text was criticised by the
lecturer. But that text had given me the inspiration for what I did.
Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-05-04 05:14:58 UTC
Permalink
A response to a couple of points in Gladys' posting.

"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>* irenic * wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
><snip>
>>
>> I'd assert that the creationist mindset (and the fundamentalist and/or
>> premillennialist mindset for that matter) does not easily live with
>> cognitive dissonance... And I've not ever met one creationist who is a
>> universalist: two different hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures are
>> required to hold these two broad positions
>>
>Cognitive dissonance has to do with disagreements about knowledge. That
>would seem to me to be the simplest defintion. In life we receive
>information from many sources. In today's modern world the number of
>the sources far exceeds the number that existed in the pre TV/
>computer-Internet years.

>It is not always easy to determine what is THE TRUTH. I advise the
>students who come to me for tutoring to research as much as they can in
>the time available to them (determined by other assignments and time
>for 'family, friends, fun and games' as I often say is very important
>and a vital part of their education). Write their assignment, which
>although teachers might disagree on ideological grounds it should be
>judged on literary merit and discussions and investigations can be made
>later, even in later adult years to determine TRUTH. I don't agree with
>a political agenda that is determining some content, especially in
>Secondary education.

>I don't like the term 'fundamentalist' especially as it has been used
>in denigration in some of the postings in this newsgroup. There is
>knowledge that is 'fundamental' in every aspect of life - the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>intellectual knowledge about who we are, what we can do, and the
>ultimate purpose of being - is there an eternal destiny for us as
>humans?
>I attended in an evangelical Christian tradition for just over forty
>years. If some choose to call that fundamentalist, that is their idea.

And one of these pieces of knowledge that is fundamental to the study
of biology is an adequate understanding of evolution.
Unfortunately, the creationist movement which has been imported (with
lots of other parts of today's culture in Australia) from USA is of
absolutely no use in providing any sort of evaluation of legitimate
science, whether it be astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics,
chemistry, or even biology.

[deletions]

>One further matter, from a previous posting that I found in the
>Scripture Union /
>Inter-School Christian Fellowship movement a unity in Christian
>service, I would like to make it clear that because of the work with
>school children there is no teaching on whether Creationism or Theistic
>Evolution is correct. That is information that can be investigated
>later in life.

This is one of the disastrous dichotomies which creationists present.
It already *assumes* that evolution cannot be true.
And it ignores the vast number of species of creationism around, many
of which are mutually incompatible.
For some of these, have a look at the introductory chapter of Robert
Pennock's "Tower of Babel". I'll see if I can find the passage where
he provides a number of acronyms, type it up and post it.

To whet your appetite, there is YEC, IDC and ETC.
I'll expand these in a later post, unless someone else provides the
full names.

[rest deleted]

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-04 23:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> A response to a couple of points in Gladys' posting.
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
>>
> And one of (the) pieces of knowledge that is fundamental to the study
> of biology is an adequate understanding of evolution.
> Unfortunately, the creationist movement which has been imported (with
> lots of other parts of today's culture in Australia) from USA is of
> absolutely no use in providing any sort of evaluation of legitimate
> science, whether it be astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics,
> chemistry, or even biology.
>
> [deletions]
>
The scientific Creation movement does not just quote the Bible. They
are seeking answers in their research to indicate there is evidence
that God created - that living organisms did not evolve by random
chance up a tree of life, or according to the cladistic
representations (that could be called branches of evolving living
organisms) from unknown previous ancestors, which I have said in a
previous posting obliterates the problematic beginnings of all life in
bacteria and fungi..

> >One further mtter, from a previous posting that I found in the
> >Scripture Union /
> >Inter-School Christian Fellowship movement a unity in Christian
> >service, I would like to make it clear that because of the work with
> >school children there is no teaching on whether Creationism or Theistic
> >Evolution is correct. That is information that can be investigated
> >later in life.
>
> This is one of the disastrous dichotomies which creationists present.
> It already *assumes* that evolution cannot be true.

Haven't many of those who, through historical times, have accepted that
evolution is true have *assumed* that Creation was untrue?

> And it ignores the vast number of species of creationism around, many
> of which are mutually incompatible.
> For some of these, have a look at the introductory chapter of Robert
> Pennock's "Tower of Babel". I'll see if I can find the passage where
> he provides a number of acronyms, type it up and post it.
>
> To whet your appetite, there is YEC, IDC and ETC.

Young-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creaionism, third one I
can't work out - perhaps Evolutionary Theory Creationism???

Yes! there are quite a number of ideas in the Creation movement, I'll
grant you that.

Secular evolutionists may seem to have a unified theory.
I can see how from 1946, when I was one of the first post-war trainee
teachers that Secularists set their sights on changing our society,
without, it would seem to me in hindsight, any adequate evaluation of
what was good in out society prior to those years.
In a revamping of the Tertiary and Secondary school system in 1962
evolution was taught to ALL high school students. Later evolution was
taught to ALL students.

I'll speak personally. When my class was tested in Word Recognition
before all Primary teachers (public and private schools in the Goulburn
area) by an Infants' Inspector who came specifically from Sydney to do
that (of interest to know why? but I will not go into that) teachers
were amazed (Roman Catholic nuns asked me how I gained the results to
the unseen test) I was given an appointment in which it may have been
known that the class I would teach many misbehaviour problems as the
former teacher - a Christian young woman from the country (a teacher
who I came to admire greatly) had lost control. When she was killed in
a tragic accident quite spontaneously I was given information about the
manipulation of the Inspection system.
I can only believe that the intention of my appointment was to make me
a scapegoat - to blame me for the misbehaviours - ie. that I produced
them as I used physical punishment when necessary.

In a society that depends on the media to disperse information it can
only take one incident to give the appearance that others of the same
ideology will also be involved.
In fact from 1970, when I had been appointed to another school with
more intense behaviour problems, one section of the media and then
others were used to quote Proverbs of the Bible in resepct of the
discipline of children. That quoting was not correct as it did not
indicate that the Biblical teaching was about bringing up children with
good behaviours.

So I can only assume, as I have not been told that it is an actual
fact, that secularists / athesists / evolutionists set out from the
immediate post-war years to take over our society.

In the NSW education system from the early 1800's Christian
denominations gave instruction, the first state school opened in 1848
and then the 1880 Act under Sir Henry Parkes as Premier made State
school education secular (with provision for visiting denominational
clergy) and most church- organised schools closed except for Roman
Catholic Schools, who in NSW were willing to join the State school
system, but that was prohibited by the Vatican. To those not aware of
that it would seem that the Roman Catholic denomination is more
interested in children's education than the Protestant denominations.
But that is not the true fact.
>From 1975 there has been a movement by Protestants to open more schools
so that they can give teaching according to their beliefs, while at the
same time meeting Government regulations according to syllabus content.
In some of those schools, (the percentage I do not know), both
evolution and creationism/intelligent design are taught. That at least
allows students to know the findings of other scientists and as they
grow older, to form their own opinions.

That doesn't suit the secular evolutionists. They don't want students,
and through their control of the media, they don't want the general
public to know that there are highly degreed accredited scientists who
believe from their research that evolution did not happen.

<snip>

I'll post on Tiktaalik, mentioned in one of your previous postings,
next week. I have other commitments over the weekend so I will not be
posting until Monday.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-05-06 00:21:26 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken Smith wrote:
>> A response to a couple of points in Gladys' posting.
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>> And one of (the) pieces of knowledge that is fundamental to the study
>> of biology is an adequate understanding of evolution.
>> Unfortunately, the creationist movement which has been imported (with
>> lots of other parts of today's culture in Australia) from USA is of
>> absolutely no use in providing any sort of evaluation of legitimate
>> science, whether it be astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics,
>> chemistry, or even biology.
>>
>> [deletions]
>>
> The scientific Creation movement does not just quote the Bible. They
> are seeking answers in their research to indicate there is evidence
> that God created - that living organisms did not evolve by random
> chance up a tree of life, or according to the cladistic
> representations (that could be called branches of evolving living
> organisms) from unknown previous ancestors, which I have said in a
> previous posting obliterates the problematic beginnings of all life in
> bacteria and fungi..

They might be *seeking* that, but they have no evidence for it.


[]

> Secular evolutionists may seem to have a unified theory.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The theory of evolution is supported
by facts. Beyond that, scientists studying evolution frequently differ with
one another; that's how the body of knowledge is advanced.

> I can see how from 1946, when I was one of the first post-war trainee
> teachers that Secularists set their sights on changing our society,
> without, it would seem to me in hindsight, any adequate evaluation of
> what was good in out society prior to those years.
> In a revamping of the Tertiary and Secondary school system in 1962
> evolution was taught to ALL high school students. Later evolution was
> taught to ALL students.

Why shouldn't it be? Leaving evolution out of the science curriculum would
be like leaving out bacteriology, on the grounds that some religious groups
believe disease is caused by demon possession.

>
> I'll speak personally. When my class was tested in Word Recognition
> before all Primary teachers (public and private schools in the Goulburn
> area) by an Infants' Inspector who came specifically from Sydney to do
> that (of interest to know why? but I will not go into that) teachers
> were amazed (Roman Catholic nuns asked me how I gained the results to
> the unseen test) I was given an appointment in which it may have been
> known that the class I would teach many misbehaviour problems as the
> former teacher - a Christian young woman from the country (a teacher
> who I came to admire greatly) had lost control. When she was killed in
> a tragic accident quite spontaneously I was given information about the
> manipulation of the Inspection system.
> I can only believe that the intention of my appointment was to make me
> a scapegoat - to blame me for the misbehaviours - ie. that I produced
> them as I used physical punishment when necessary.

I have no idea how this relates to evolution. In fact, I don't understand
what point you're trying to make, at all.

>
> In a society that depends on the media to disperse information it can
> only take one incident to give the appearance that others of the same
> ideology will also be involved.
> In fact from 1970, when I had been appointed to another school with
> more intense behaviour problems, one section of the media and then
> others were used to quote Proverbs of the Bible in resepct of the
> discipline of children. That quoting was not correct as it did not
> indicate that the Biblical teaching was about bringing up children with
> good behaviours.
>
> So I can only assume, as I have not been told that it is an actual
> fact, that secularists / athesists / evolutionists set out from the
> immediate post-war years to take over our society.

*blink* and you're basing this on evolution being taught in science, as it
should be, and on classes of kids with behavioural problems being
inspected - also, as it should be. Huh??


> In the NSW education system from the early 1800's Christian
> denominations gave instruction, the first state school opened in 1848
> and then the 1880 Act under Sir Henry Parkes as Premier made State
> school education secular (with provision for visiting denominational
> clergy) and most church- organised schools closed except for Roman
> Catholic Schools, who in NSW were willing to join the State school
> system, but that was prohibited by the Vatican. To those not aware of
> that it would seem that the Roman Catholic denomination is more
> interested in children's education than the Protestant denominations.
> But that is not the true fact.
>>From 1975

Hang on. You're leaping from 1880 to 1975, there.


there has been a movement by Protestants to open more schools
> so that they can give teaching according to their beliefs, while at the
> same time meeting Government regulations according to syllabus content.

So, in that century which you skipped over, there are no Christian schools,
or there are RCC schools and no Protestant schools, or there are Protestant
schools and no RCC schools, or what?

> In some of those schools, (the percentage I do not know), both
> evolution and creationism/intelligent design are taught. That at least
> allows students to know the findings of other scientists and as they
> grow older, to form their own opinions.

In *all* state schools in the UK, both evolution and creation are taught.
The former in science, the latter in RE. I suspect it's similar in
Australia.


> That doesn't suit the secular evolutionists. They don't want students,
> and through their control of the media, they don't want the general
> public to know that there are highly degreed accredited scientists who
> believe from their research that evolution did not happen.

The general public doesn't much care about the personal beliefs of
scientists; they're interested in results. As I pointed out elsethread, one
of the individuals you touted as a well-respected "creation scientist" was
respected for his *science* - his personal delusions were, for the most
part, politely ignored both by the scientific/medical community and by the
public.

Jani
Ken Smith
2006-05-08 23:40:21 UTC
Permalink
A bit of help for Gladys

"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Ken Smith wrote:
>> A response to a couple of points in Gladys' posting.
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
><snip>
>>>
>> And one of (the) pieces of knowledge that is fundamental to the study
>> of biology is an adequate understanding of evolution.
>> Unfortunately, the creationist movement which has been imported (with
>> lots of other parts of today's culture in Australia) from USA is of
>> absolutely no use in providing any sort of evaluation of legitimate
>> science, whether it be astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics,
>> chemistry, or even biology.
>>
>> [deletions]
>>
>The scientific Creation movement does not just quote the Bible. They
>are seeking answers in their research to indicate there is evidence
>that God created - that living organisms did not evolve by random
>chance up a tree of life, or according to the cladistic
>representations (that could be called branches of evolving living
>organisms) from unknown previous ancestors, which I have said in a
>previous posting obliterates the problematic beginnings of all life in
>bacteria and fungi..

>> >One further mtter, from a previous posting that I found in the
>> >Scripture Union /
>> >Inter-School Christian Fellowship movement a unity in Christian
>> >service, I would like to make it clear that because of the work with
>> >school children there is no teaching on whether Creationism or Theistic
>> >Evolution is correct. That is information that can be investigated
>> >later in life.
>>
>> This is one of the disastrous dichotomies which creationists present.
>> It already *assumes* that evolution cannot be true.

>Haven't many of those who, through historical times, have accepted that
>evolution is true have *assumed* that Creation was untrue?

>> And it ignores the vast number of species of creationism around, many
>> of which are mutually incompatible.
>> For some of these, have a look at the introductory chapter of Robert
>> Pennock's "Tower of Babel". I'll see if I can find the passage where
>> he provides a number of acronyms, type it up and post it.
>>
>> To whet your appetite, there is YEC, IDC and ETC.

>Young-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creaionism, third one I
>can't work out - perhaps Evolutionary Theory Creationism???

Sorry, Gladys, but its Extra-Terrestrial Creationism.
The main believers in this are Raelians - and if you haven't nmet one,
you have a treat in store.
They also believe that the multitude of life forms we see around us is
too complicated to have arisen by evolutuion from some earlier life
form(s).

Their explanation?
It is the result of tinkering by super-intelligent aliens, who arrive
here on UFOs, and are using this planet as their genetic testing
laboratory, not wanting to risk these organisms escaping on their home
planet.
These very clever scientists are known as "Elohim".

And the Raelians have a solution to a problem of interpretation of the
early verses of Genesis 6.
There it is recorded that the sons of God saw the daughters of men,
and married some of them.
The word "God" is "Elohim" in Hebrew.
So these scientists thought that some of the results of their
experimental tinkering were so good looking that they indulged in a
bit of hanky-panky with their experimental subjects - and, of course,
got into strife with the Ethics Committee back on their home planet.
The result was a decision to wipe out these scientists and all their
work, which we have recorded in subsequent chapters as Noah's Flood.

This all hangs together, and can't be refuted from a purely scientific
viewpoint.
But it is so much in conflict with the rest of science that no
scientists takes them seriously - in short, they are regarded much
like other species of creationists.

[rest deleted]

>I'll post on Tiktaalik, mentioned in one of your previous postings,
>next week. I have other commitments over the weekend so I will not be
>posting until Monday.
>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier
flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology
forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism.' Conrad Hyers
Ken Smith
2006-05-03 23:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Typing errors in links can be fatal, Jani.
Not your fault in the cases noted below - Gladys needs to check things
like links *very carefully* before sending.

"Jani" <***@dsl.pipex.com> writes:


>"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jani wrote:
>>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>> <snip>

[deletions]

>Yes, exactly, it's poorly defined.
>>
>> Ghostly coincidence in an unusual fish.
>> http://www.answersingenesis,org/creation/v15/i4/fish.asp

>Link doesn't work.

Should be answersingenesis.org

>>
>> Similarities don't prove evolution
>> http://www.answersingenesis/creation/v14/i2/evolution.asp

>Link doesn't work.

Ditto

[rest deleted

>He could have believed in the Great Pink Unicorn, for all anyone cared, but
>he had the sense to keep his personal delusions out of his research.
>"Creation scientists" don't.

On talk.origins it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn, usually abbreviated
IPU.
And he's looking over my shoulder as I type.

>Jani

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
Ken Smith
2006-05-03 23:36:22 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Epigram wrote:
>> Gladys, if one of my students wrote an essay and only quoted from the
>> web, I'd fail them. Wouldn't you?
>>
><snip>
>>
>No!. Some students only have the Internet as their resource, and even
>that has been quite expensive for their parents to provide - much, much
>more costly than the resources that were available to me in school and
>teacher training. School and Public Libraries do not always provide the
>books that are required or have them in so few numbers that only those
>who borrow first have access to the additional information.

>The Research style of study that is now in use relieves teachers and
>lecturers from a certain amount of face-to-face teaching that was the
>norm in my younger years of study and teaching.

>The fact is that with the Internet school students, as well as myself,
>have a very large number of articles that we can use to meet our
>purposes. That may not be completely satisfactory to you, but remember
>that time constraints restrict the amount of work that students can do.

We know, Gladys.
And since you, an educated adult, seem to think that anything from the
Answers in Genesis web site is valid science, nobody should be too
surprised that school students are similarly confused.

Now that anyone with acess to the Internet can set up their own Web
site - and vast numbers do - we now have all the idiotic ideas, which
once used to sink without recognition, being paraded before us, with
claims that these should be taught to our children, grandchildren, and
generations yet to come.

Even the former Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, was taken in
by creationism masquerading as "intelligent design".

It needs a fair bit of background knowledge to sift the small amount
of wheat from the vast amounts of chaff when it comes to things
scientific on the Web.

>>From the studies I did for my Diploma of Teaching - Special Education
>(1978 - 1981) it is possible for lecturers to ask for/demand the texts
>that they approve.
>When I was the first person to motivate a language-disadvantaged 5 year
>old to utter a word on cue the use of a 1961 text was criticised by the
>lecturer. But that text had given me the inspiration for what I did.
>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
Ken Smith
2006-05-03 23:39:57 UTC
Permalink
"* irenic *" <***@website.com> writes:


>"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> * irenic * wrote:
><>
>> I have gone to a website on William Barclay
>> http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
>>
>> William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
>> that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
>>
>> I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
>> those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.

>Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards universalism
>Gladys!

As far as I know, the agnostic evolutionist Charles Darwin didn't
comit any crimes.
Will he be among those I'll meet when this present life is over?

>--
>Shalom! Rowland Croucher

>"If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
>insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary to separate them
>from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil
>cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy
>a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,000 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
Ken Smith
2006-05-03 23:47:49 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

>* irenic * wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > I have gone to a website on William Barclay
>> > http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
>> >
>> > William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
>> > that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
>> > I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
>> > those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
>>
>> Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards universalism

>Your criticism of 'fellow-creationists' may not be justified.
>I have promoted knowledge of Creationism as I believe the scientists
>involved in that study have just as much right to be heard as the
>Evolutionary scientists (atheistic or theistic) because many of them
>have as high Tertiary and research qualifications.
>There's a lot I can't understand on both sides of that issue because I
>do not have the Tertiary studies in the many science disciplines
>involved in the issue.
>I may be 'an unsuspecting layperson' to some, but I am 'an interested
>layperson' who would like to see the issue resolved.

If you "would like to see the issue resolved", Gladys, it's largely up
to you.
You seem willing to use the Web, rather than borrow some scientific
books on evolution and read them.
In that case, how about for a month or so leaving Answers in Genesis
alone, and trawling through the Talk Origins archive
http://www.talkorigins.org
You won't exhaust the riches of that site in a month, but a day or so
would enable you to get something of the flavour of things, and read
the FAQs which deal specifically with religion.

>For confirmation of his statement (above) William Barclay used the
>following New Testament texts among others:-
>John 12 : 32 (Jesus) "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw
>ALLl men to myself"
>Romans 11 : 32 (Paul) God has consigned ALL men to disobedience that he
>may have
> mercy on ALL.
>1 Corinthians 15 : 22 (Paul) As in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ
>shall ALL be made alive.

>But compare: John 3 : 16 (Jesus) For God so loved the world that He
>gave His only
> begotten Son, so
>that
> WHOEVER BELIEVES
> IN HIM
> shall not
>perish, but (shall) have Eternal Life.
>Therefore, personal faith In Jesus Christ, God's Son (God in human
>form) is a necessary pre-requistive for having Eternal Life. Jesus was
>not saying that by His life, death and resurrection that Eternal Life
>was given automatically to all persons.

>As I was searching through the Internet I came across the following:-

[deleted]

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
Ken Smith
2006-05-03 23:57:45 UTC
Permalink
"* irenic *" <***@website.com> writes:


>"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>* irenic * wrote:
>>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > I have gone to a website on William Barclay
>>> > http://www.godstruthfortoday,org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm
>>> >
>>> > William Barclay called himself 'A Convinced Universalist' and believed
>>> > that in the end all (persons) will be gathered into the love of God.
>>> > I have come to pray that God, in His mercy, will save us all, even
>>> > those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
>>>
>>> Now your fellow-creationists won't like your tendency towards
>>> universalism
>>
>> Your criticism of 'fellow-creationists' may not be justified.

>I'd assert that the creationist mindset (and the fundamentalist and/or
>premillennialist mindset for that matter) does not easily live with
>cognitive dissonance... And I've not ever met one creationist who is a
>universalist: two different hermeneutical approaches to the Scriptures are
>required to hold these two broad positions

A common problem thinking Christians have with those who espouse the
more conservative views is the insistence of teh latter that there is
only one legitimate hermeneutical approach.
Of course, different people within this segment of Christianity differ
about what the approach should be. Hence the vast number of splits -
and the recent split between Ken Ham in USA who wanted Answers in
Genesis to follow his line, and Creation Ministries International based
in Australia (formerly known as Answers in Genesis) is just the
latest example I've seen of this.

And in my experience, a divorce between a couple of atheists is
usually much less acrimonious than a split between two Christian
groups.

>For more on universalism visit

>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/keyword/u-2.htm

>--
>Shalom! Rowland Croucher

>"If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere
>insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary to separate them
>from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil
>cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy
>a piece of his own heart?" Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,000 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science deals only with those portions and conditions of the Universe
that can be reasonably observed and for which the tools it uses are
adequate.' Isaac Asimov
Barry OGrady
2006-04-28 03:47:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:07:24 +0000 (UTC), ***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:

>"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:
>
>>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
>>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
>>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>
>Or in the words of J. B. Phillips, whose translation of the New
>Testament brought new light on things to many people, including me,

You still haven't seen the light.

>"Your God Is Too Small", Gladys.
>I'll have to dig that book out and read it again.

You can read?

>>Theo
>
>Ken Smith
>
>--
>Ken Smith

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
James
2006-05-05 17:03:09 UTC
Permalink
>"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>Re: Creation / Evolution

>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>
>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>
>Theo
>

Theo,

From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
evolving that turned it into another "kind".

So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
evidence shows!

For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
research said:

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
. . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
1953, p. 1212.)

So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
more than what they claim to have today)

If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
evolution.

Sincerely, James


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Libertarius
2006-05-05 20:46:55 UTC
Permalink
James wrote:

> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
> >Re: Creation / Evolution
>
> >"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
> >
> >> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> >> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> >> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
> >
> >You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
> >
> >Theo
> >
>
> Theo,
>
> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>
> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
> evidence shows!
>
> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
> research said:
>
> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
> 1953, p. 1212.)
>
> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
> more than what they claim to have today)
>
> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
> evolution.
>
> Sincerely, James

===>You are so right, James!

The Bible (Genesis 2) reports so clearly and unmistakably
that it was an extraterrestrial named YHWH ELOHIM
who sculpted the ancestors of all creatures, including
Adam, out of mud and blew air into their noses to make them
alive.

How could anyone not immediately see the correctness
of that report? -- L.
Jani
2006-05-05 23:10:56 UTC
Permalink
"James" <***@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>>Re: Creation / Evolution
>
>>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>>
>>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>>
>>Theo
>>
>
> Theo,
>
> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>
> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
> evidence shows!
>
> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
> research said:
>
> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
> 1953, p. 1212.)

Why would you pick out one citation, from half a century ago, when it has
been repeatedly pointed out that scientific investigation is not static?


> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
> more than what they claim to have today)

Why should they? Fossils are there because of particular geological
conditions which happened to preserve them; no-one expects there to be some
neatly-labelled, continuous line of fossils which demonstrates every tiny
variation all the way back through however-many millennia.

> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
> evolution.

Evolution *does not deal with origins*.

Jani
Melchizedek
2006-05-06 00:17:08 UTC
Permalink
"James" <***@allvantage.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
> >Re: Creation / Evolution
>
> >"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
> >
> >> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
> >> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
> >> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
> >
> >You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
> >
> >Theo
> >
>
> Theo,
>
> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>
> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
> evidence shows!
>
> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
> research said:
>
> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
> 1953, p. 1212.)
>
> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
> more than what they claim to have today)
>
> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
> evolution.
>
> Sincerely, James
\


Published Small Group Bibly Study Materials

http://lulu.com/bibleweb/

Design From a Benevolent Creator
In defense of the Biblical stance that all creation in the
universe is a product of magnificent design from a
Benevolent Creator, this book is an overview of just how
wonderful God is and why His book, the Bible is so significant.

Creation Studies: Evidence of Design
In a workbook style, this book will address the pros and cons
of two worldviews. Creation - belief that the origin, history,
and destiny of the universe, life, and human life is based on
God's Word about a perfect-six-day-creation, ruined by man's sin,
destroyed by Noah's flood, and restored to new life in Christ.
Evolution - belief that (with or without God's involvement) the
origin, history, and "meaning" of the universe, life, and human
life is based on expert human opinion about time, chance, and long
ages of death and struggle. Since each model of origins entails a
comprehensive worldview, embracing the whole of reality, each is
basically philosophical or better religious. The premise that
evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false
since it is impossible for scientists actually observe or repeat
unique events of the past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
/> A Christian Bible Study Collection
<>< />
/< Small Group Bible Studies
[XXXX(O):::===============================>
\< 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
><> \>
\> http://Bibleweb.Info/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Oldridge
2006-05-06 03:51:34 UTC
Permalink
"Melchizedek" <***@bibleweb.info> wrote in
news:ZVR6g.12672$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>
> "James" <***@allvantage.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>> >Re: Creation / Evolution
>>
>> >"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>> >
>> >> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> >> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> >> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>> >
>> >You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>> >
>> >Theo
>> >
>>
>> Theo,
>>
>> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created
>> all things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible
>> clearly shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all
>> living things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25)
>> Thus they were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses
>> were made as complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc.
>> There was no evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>>
>> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
>> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
>> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
>> evidence shows!
>>
>> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
>> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
>> research said:
>>
>> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
>> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
>> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
>> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
>> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
>> 1953, p. 1212.)
>>
>> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
>> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
>> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
>> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many,
>> many more than what they claim to have today)
>>
>> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
>> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
>> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
>> evolution.
>>
>> Sincerely, James
> \
>
>
> Published Small Group Bibly Study Materials
>
> http://lulu.com/bibleweb/
>
> Design From a Benevolent Creator
> In defense of the Biblical stance that all creation in the
> universe is a product of magnificent design from a
> Benevolent Creator, this book is an overview of just how
> wonderful God is and why His book, the Bible is so significant.
>
> Creation Studies: Evidence of Design
> In a workbook style, this book will address the pros and cons
> of two worldviews. Creation - belief that the origin, history,
> and destiny of the universe, life, and human life is based on
> God's Word about a perfect-six-day-creation, ruined by man's sin,
> destroyed by Noah's flood, and restored to new life in Christ.

A very facile, Protestant view of salvation without a shred of really
solid theology under it.

> Evolution - belief that (with or without God's involvement) the

Evolution is not a "belief." It is a scientific observation and some
scientific theories that explain the observation.

> origin, history, and "meaning" of the universe, life, and human
> life is based on expert human opinion about time, chance, and long
> ages of death and struggle. Since each model of origins entails a

Again, it's based on OBSERVED PHYSICAL DATA.

> comprehensive worldview, embracing the whole of reality, each is
> basically philosophical or better religious. The premise that
> evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false
> since it is impossible for scientists actually observe or repeat
> unique events of the past.

It is also impossible for theologues to make their revelations repeatable
and available to all.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> /> A Christian Bible Study Collection
> <>< />
> /< Small Group Bible Studies
> [XXXX(O):::===============================>
> \< 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
> ><> \>
> \> http://Bibleweb.Info/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------

I'm inclined to feel that you're a pompous spiritual dilettante with a
little knowledge. Which is a dangerous thing. The high priest whose
name you are usurping on the internet might be displeased with your
approach to things spiritual.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
ZenIsWhen
2006-05-06 07:15:35 UTC
Permalink
"Melchizedek" <***@bibleweb.info> wrote in message
news:ZVR6g.12672$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "James" <***@allvantage.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>> >Re: Creation / Evolution
>>
>> >"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>> >
>> >> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>> >> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>> >> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>> >
>> >You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>> >
>> >Theo
>> >
>>
>> Theo,
>>
>> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
>> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
>> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
>> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
>> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
>> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
>> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>>
>> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
>> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
>> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
>> evidence shows!
>>
>> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
>> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
>> research said:
>>
>> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
>> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
>> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
>> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
>> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
>> 1953, p. 1212.)
>>
>> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
>> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
>> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
>> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
>> more than what they claim to have today)
>>
>> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
>> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
>> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
>> evolution.
>>
>> Sincerely, James
> \
>
>
> Published Small Group Bibly Study Materials
>
> http://lulu.com/bibleweb/
>
> Design From a Benevolent Creator
> In defense of the Biblical stance that all creation in the
> universe is a product of magnificent design from a
> Benevolent Creator, this book is an overview of just how
> wonderful God is and why His book, the Bible is so significant.

IOW it's ignorant, fanatical, fundamentalist crap!

>
> Creation Studies: Evidence of Design

Since design is nothing more than an opinion (such as beauty,) - there is no
sane reason to claim the false base OF design as evidence of anything.
You have to FIRST create a solid scientific/factual base of what "design"
actually means.
You haven't, because you can't.
So - "design" means NOTHING


> In a workbook style, this book will address the pros and cons
> of two worldviews. Creation - belief that the origin, history,
> and destiny of the universe, life, and human life is based on
> God's Word about a perfect-six-day-creation, ruined by man's sin,
> destroyed by Noah's flood, and restored to new life in Christ.
> Evolution - belief that (with or without God's involvement) the
> origin, history, and "meaning" of the universe, life, and human
> life is based on expert human opinion about time, chance, and long
> ages of death and struggle.

Bwahahahaaaaa............ Notice that you completely ignore the things
called EVIDENCE and FACT!
"Evolution" is a CONCLUSION from those FACTS you conveniently ignore!


Since each model of origins entails a
> comprehensive worldview, embracing the whole of reality, each is
> basically philosophical or better religious.

Since this is nothing more than gutter trash crap, it means nothing.

That is similar to your calling (in effect) gravity (a "world" event) the
same as the completely silly, and fabricated, Noah's flood (as far as
accepting as fact - an insane, fantical religious BELIEF)!


The premise that
> evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false
> since it is impossible for scientists actually observe or repeat
> unique events of the past.

The premise that anaything you bellow (from ignorance) is related to
anything mentally sane is silly.

Stop in a court sometime ......... you'll see people sent to jail and even
put to death on EVIDENCE that isn't repeated.

BTW .... can you repeat Noah's flood?
Creation?
Jonah being swallowed?
The sun standing still?
The plagues on Egypt?
Walking on water?
Immacualte conception?
Living in the desert without food and water for forty days?
The parting of the Red Sea?
Eden?

I didn't think so ....... and I will not be a bit surprised at the insanity
of he excuses you invent.

WHY, if they are SO right, do fanatical christians have to lie so much?
Dave Oldridge
2006-05-06 03:45:21 UTC
Permalink
James <***@allvantage.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

>>"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>>Re: Creation / Evolution
>
>>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>>
>>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>>
>>Theo
>>
>
> Theo,
>
> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>
> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
> evidence shows!
>
> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
> research said:
>
> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
> 1953, p. 1212.)
>
> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
> more than what they claim to have today)

So Biblianity is then certainly in conflict with the physical, scientific
evidence which, for example, shows, beyond any REASONABLE doubt that
humans and chimps share a common genetic ancestry.
>
> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
> evolution.

Hey, just a thought, maybe the Bible is only INDIRECTLY from God through
the intermediaries who actually penned the words.


Your last statement is simply false to fact. At no time does the Bible
teach you to make such statements. The FACT is the fossil evidence
strongly supports evolution and does not support special creation at all.

For your information, MOST fossils are transitional. Only those at the
end of extinct lineages are not. Creationists repeat these falsehoods
again and again and again, showing that they do not follow the teachings
they claim to follow, but rather try any expedient deception that they
believe will deceive the ignorant into joining them in an UNHOLY campaign
against honest science.

But then maybe you're not interested in HONEST science.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
ZenIsWhen
2006-05-06 07:00:07 UTC
Permalink
"James" <***@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> >"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au>
>>Re: Creation / Evolution
>
>>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>>> The issue, Theo, is:- Would God Almighty create by evolution? The
>>> answer that has been given to me previously, "He can create by any
>>> means he likes" does not really answer the question.
>>
>>You are limiting your omnipotent God Gladys.
>>
>>Theo
>>
>
> Theo,
>
> From the Bible's view, there is no issue concerning if God created all
> things by using evolution, or by direct creation. The Bible clearly
> shows direct creation. The Bible in Genesis states that all living
> things were made each according to its "kind". (Ge 1:24,25) Thus they
> were made full and complete, right from the start. Horses were made as
> complete horses, elephants as complete elephants, etc. There was no
> evolving that turned it into another "kind".
>
> So if the creation account is the way life occurred, then we should
> NOT find transitional life forms in the strata, but rather whole and
> complete organisms suddenly appearing. And that is what the real
> evidence shows!

Then, obviously, your concept of reality is quite warped by ignorance.

>
> For example, even many decades ago, the fossil evidence told its own
> story. Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own
> research said:
>
> "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of
> palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .
> . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the
> scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be
> filled." (Synthetische Artbildung [The Synthetic Origin of Species],
> 1953, p. 1212.)

Nothing like quoting another kook to support your insane claims:

"
Nils Heribert Nilsson. 1953. _Synthetische Artbildung [Synthetic
Speciation]: Grundlinien einer exacten Biologie_. Lund, Sweden;
C.W.K. Gleerup. 2 Volumes.

Tom McIver has an entry on this book in his _Anti-Evolution: An
Annotated Bibliography_. Nilsson was a geneticist, and apparently
worked as a botanist. McIver reports that he was director of the
"Botanical Institute" of Lund, Sweden. But Nilsson also seems to
have been a bit of a loon! He had some weird ideas about genes
(even for the time), including the claim that enzymes were also
genes. In this book he also advocated Hans Horbiger's "cosmic ice
theory", a pseudoscience of repeated planetary catastrophes which
obtained a cult following in Germany and Austria under the Nazis.

The cosmic ice theory is similar in flavor and evidentiary basis
(though not in specifics) to Velikovsky's planetary pinball scheme.
It involves the claim that the orbits of the planets and moons are
gradually slowing down. The earth has had a number of different
moons -- small planets that the earth has sequentially captured and
which eventually disintegrate and fall to the earth. Mythological
evidence (supposedly) indicates that our present moon was captured
13,500 years ago. One of the past moons was made of ice (thus
"cosmic ice"), and its disintegration caused Noah's flood. As with
Velikovskism, "cosmic ice" theorists were often big on "proving"
the accuracy of the bible.

Nilsson's views on "synthetic speciation" were even stranger. Here
is McIver's summary:

During these catastrophic periods, new organisms are created by
"emication" -- a drastic alteration or production of gametes. A
few survive as totally new forms. Inspired by Oparin's theory
of spontaneous origin of life, Nilsson argues that these
gametes, of entirely new organisms, could form spontaneously and
polyphyletically, out of the mix of biocatalytic substances
engendered during the catastrophic episodes. "During
paleobiological times whole new worlds of biota have been
repeatedly synthesized." Nilsson declares that organisms such
as orchids and elephants were "instantly created out of
non-living material.""

>
> So the Bible needs to be examined in what it says, and compared with
> the real true evidence that exists, not in the "theories" of why
> scientists can't find all of those thousands of transitional life
> forms that should be there. (at the least, they should have many, many
> more than what they claim to have today)

The bible HAS been examined, moron, and found (as far as genesis is
concerned) totally false!
EVERY LIVING ORGANISM is in transition from what it wsa in the past to what
it will be in the future.
Whay YOU call "transitional forms" HAVE been found, but, in your dedicated
ignorance, you deny them.


> If the Bible is truly from God, then it must be in harmony with true
> science. And concerning the origins of life, the Bible's account is
> more in harmony with the fossil evidence, that the theory of
> evolution.

You have proof of "god"?
Where is it ? ...... and please, don't be a total asshole and quote the
bible.

Only in a deranged, psychotic, mind does the bible fit reality.
Ken Smith
2006-04-12 23:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> writes:



>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>>
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >
>> > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
>> > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
>> > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
>> > > was no Almighty God involved.
>> >
>> > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
>> > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
>> > told that evolution does not exclude God?
>>
>> I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
>> accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
>> ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
>> making) - did happen.

>And we are well aware of this ad nauseam rant and of its irrelevance
>to the question. We are also aware of your inability/refusal to learn
>even the basics of the theory and of your inability to respond
>pertinently and appropriately when even the most elementary points
>are being put to you - see your last for an example.

I've just taken Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is" off my
bookshelves and am reading it again. From memory this was published
in 2002.
Appendix A lists some other ideas about the origin of the variety of
living organisms. The first of these is creationism - I'll transcribe
the section (it's quite short) and post it.

><snip>



>Sean McHugh


>-
>*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
>*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Imagine the trauma and shock of finally realizing that Flood geology,
which has been endorsed so enthusiastically by well-meaning Christian
leaders, is nothing more than a fantasy.' Davis A. Young
Ken Smith
2006-04-18 03:14:57 UTC
Permalink
***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) writes:

>Sean McHugh <***@shoal.net.au> writes:



>>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>>>
>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> > ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
>>> > > the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
>>> > > present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
>>> > > was no Almighty God involved.
>>> >
>>> > Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
>>> > not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
>>> > told that evolution does not exclude God?
>>>
>>> I am well aware that there are posters in this newgroup who want me to
>>> accept that evolution - unicellular to multicelluar
>>> ('goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'; 'molecules to man', - phrases not of my
>>> making) - did happen.

>>And we are well aware of this ad nauseam rant and of its irrelevance
>>to the question. We are also aware of your inability/refusal to learn
>>even the basics of the theory and of your inability to respond
>>pertinently and appropriately when even the most elementary points
>>are being put to you - see your last for an example.

>I've just taken Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is" off my
>bookshelves and am reading it again. From memory this was published
>in 2002.
>Appendix A lists some other ideas about the origin of the variety of
>living organisms. The first of these is creationism - I'll transcribe
>the section (it's quite short) and post it.

I haven't done this yet - but to keep things rolling he covers
craetionism in just one sentence, something along the lines of;
"Creationism has been erefuted so often and so competently that there
is no need for me to say anything here."

I'll try to get time to transcribe his exact words and post them on
Thursday.

>>Sean McHugh

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`If you want a religion, if you need a religion, then find one. ... But
don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a
religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"
Ken Smith
2006-04-12 23:17:28 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:

>***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

>> Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
>> the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
>> present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
>> was no Almighty God involved.

>Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
>not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
>told that evolution does not exclude God? In fact, most people who believe
>evolution occurred, and is still occurring every day, are believers in God.
>The people who look really silly in this discussion are the people who
>believe the earth is 6000 years old, and who also believe that all of the
>world's millions of species of animals evolved from a few "kinds" who left
>Noah's boat 4000 years ago. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I really will have to transcribe the page in Duane Gish's "Evolution:
The Fossils Say No!" where he discusses "kinds" and post it.
It's as good a refutation as any of the creationist concept of
"kinds".

Incidentally, I have a cartoon somewhere with seven (I think) rather
elderly men, with long beards, sitting down at a table and saying in
unison "No!"
The caption is "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!"

>> Creation scientists have just as much right to be heard publically as
>> do the Evolutionary scientists.

>There's no such thing as a creation scientist. Name just one and point me to
>their thesis on the origin of the earth and the animals who live on it. A
>proper thesis on origin, not a debunking of an evolutionary work. Even I can
>do that.

>Theo

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Imagine the trauma and shock of finally realizing that Flood geology,
which has been endorsed so enthusiastically by well-meaning Christian
leaders, is nothing more than a fantasy.' Davis A. Young
Ken Smith
2006-04-18 03:01:11 UTC
Permalink
***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) writes:

>"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:

>>***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

>>> Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
>>> the original life came from non-living of itself. In fact, up to the
>>> present, they haven't tried, but the implication is there that there
>>> was no Almighty God involved.

>>Gladys, Gladys, how many times do you need to be told that Evolution does
>>not claim that life evolved from non-life? How many times do you need to be
>>told that evolution does not exclude God? In fact, most people who believe
>>evolution occurred, and is still occurring every day, are believers in God.
>>The people who look really silly in this discussion are the people who
>>believe the earth is 6000 years old, and who also believe that all of the
>>world's millions of species of animals evolved from a few "kinds" who left
>>Noah's boat 4000 years ago. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I really will have to transcribe the page in Duane Gish's "Evolution:
>The Fossils Say No!" where he discusses "kinds" and post it.
>It's as good a refutation as any of the creationist concept of
>"kinds".

Here it is: Gish's actual words, indented, with my comments
interspersed and not indented.

You can judge for yourselves whether it is reasonable to classify him
as someone whose writings should be avoided, in the interests of
consistency and integrity.

In his book "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" (Creation-Life Publishers,
2nd edition, 1973) Duane Gish writes at some length about "kinds" of
organisms. On page 22 the following, occupying nearly 2/3 of a page,
shows how confused Gish is about "kinds""

In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including
all those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We
have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be
included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure,
however, what constitutes a separate kind. The division into kinds
is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for
example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish,
worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different
kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds.

Are you with me so far? All descendants of the mammals form a "basic
kind" and so, according to Gish, are related, and creationists raise no
objections to changes from one type of organism to another within the
mammal "kind". And the same goes for reptiles.
But in the next paragraph Gish writes:

Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs
(flying reptiles) and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be
placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of
reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within
each.

So now we can divide the crocodiles into different basic "kinds", within
the crocodile "kind", which is part of the reptile "basic kind". If I
can be a bit inelagant here, huh? But in the next paragraph it gets
even worse.

Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, oppossums, bats,
hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and
men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the
apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each
be included in a different basic kind.

Now I always thought that platypuses were part of the monotremes, along
with echidnas, and so does Richard Dawkins. In his 2004 book "The
Ancestor's Tale" monotremes separate from the trail leading to humans
around 180 million years ago (see chapter 15), while the marsupial
mammals (oppossums, koalas, bandicoots, koalas, kangaroos, . . . ) split
off about 40 million years later (see chapter 14), leaving the placental
mammals. This combining monotremes and both sorts of mammals into just
one "mammal kind" does not inspire confidence in Gish's knowledge of
biology.

I heard Gish speak once along these lines to a creationist audience, and
not one of them seemed to see anything wrong. But let us look a bit
more closely at chimpanzees.

According to the second sentence of the third paragraph here chimpanzees
are a "basic kind", and so "derived from a single stock", and are a
different basic kind to orangutans and gorillas.

But according to the first sentence of this paragraph all these apes
form a basic kind, and so are "derived from a single stock".
Already we have Gish seeming to be an ardent evolutionist.

If we combine his words from the first sentence of the third paragraph
with the last sentence of the first paragraph, and take his definition
from the first sentence of the first paragraph we get:

duckbilled platypuses, oppossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits,
dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to
the mammalian basic kind, and so are derived from a single stock.

So despite all his rhetoric in the remainder of the book, Gish believes
that human beings have evolved as part of the "mammal kind".

But if there is any single point which unites the wide variety of
creationists around, it is their insistence that, whatever problems
there might be about defining (and labelling) the basic "kinds", we can
be quite certain that human beings form a different basic "kind" to all
the rest of the living things on this planet.

Is it any wonder that with this sort of thing coming from one of the
most prominent advocates of creationism, scientists simply ignore
anything creationists write?
And this includes anything they write about religion as well.

This point has been put succinctly by Conrad Hyers in his book "The
Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science" (John Knox Press,
1984). On page 26 he writes:

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and
evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is
at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier
flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and
flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and
materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken
the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as
being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having
in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded
that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss
the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty
and integrity demand it.

Jesus said something about an appropriate penalty for anyone who puts a
stumbling block in the way of a child. I think the same penalty would
be appropriate for those who put the stumbling block of creationism in
the way of thinking school students or university students.

[rest of my earlier post deleted]

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`If you want a religion, if you need a religion, then find one. ... But
don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a
religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"
Epigram
2006-04-20 01:23:01 UTC
Permalink
On 04/18/2006 11:01:11 ***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:

> ***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) writes:

[...]
>>> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

[...]

>> I really will have to transcribe the page in Duane Gish's "Evolution: The
>> Fossils Say No!" where he discusses "kinds" and post it. It's as good a
>> refutation as any of the creationist concept of "kinds".

> Here it is: Gish's actual words, indented, with my comments interspersed
> and not indented.

> You can judge for yourselves whether it is reasonable to classify him as
> someone whose writings should be avoided, in the interests of consistency
> and integrity.

> In his book "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" (Creation-Life Publishers,
> 2nd edition, 1973) Duane Gish writes at some length about "kinds" of
> organisms. On page 22 the following, occupying nearly 2/3 of a page,
> shows how confused Gish is about "kinds""

> In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all
> those variants which have been derived from a single stock.

[...]

> If we combine his words from the first sentence of the third paragraph
> with the last sentence of the first paragraph, and take his definition
> from the first sentence of the first paragraph we get:

> duckbilled platypuses, oppossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs,
> cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to the
> mammalian basic kind, and so are derived from a single stock.

> So despite all his rhetoric in the remainder of the book, Gish believes
> that human beings have evolved as part of the "mammal kind".

Heh! If you've watched "The Howling III" you'll know that the horror isn't that there is a species of marsupial humans, it's Messers Barry Humphrey's and Barry Otto's insipid performances. Not to mention the (lack of) 80's fashion!

[...]

> Jesus said something about an appropriate penalty for anyone who puts a
> stumbling block in the way of a child. I think the same penalty would be
> appropriate for those who put the stumbling block of creationism in the
> way of thinking school students or university students.

The problem with that would be that creationist would refute your argument by concluding Jesus' statement was obviously not intented for them.

> [rest of my earlier post deleted]

> Salaam Ken Smith

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Jesus H Christ
2006-04-14 05:35:59 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

> Mark, What did you hope to achieve by the first posting in this topic?


Err.. A laugh?

Gladys. A hint; It was humour.



> When I have posted in other topics that Almighty God could not have
> used evolution I could not use 'the scientific method' of test and
> retest to prove what I had stated.

That's because such an assertion is based on spiritualism and not any
rational or logical means of arguing your point.


> Similarly Evolutionists cannot use the scientific method to prove that
> the original life came from non-living of itself.

Firstly, you're AGAIN confusing evolutionary biology and the theory of
evolution with scientific hypotheses around abiogenesis. You've been
told off for doing this before and you're STILL at it.

Secondly, you're AGAIN confusing the scientific process with the legal
process. "proof" isn't required.

Thirdly, there ARE already promising arguments for the biochemical
origins of abiogenesis.

> In fact, up to the
> present, they haven't tried,

Actually, there's a LOT of scientific research that addresses thes kind
of questions.

They just don't get written up where you're read them - their reaserch
gets written up in scientific journals and not in church flyers.


> but the implication is there that there
> was no Almighty God involved.

The implication for the theory of evolution is that 'gods' aren't
required to explain evolutionary biology.

You need to be more specific about what scientific theories you think
contradict what parts of your spiritualistic religious dogma.


> The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living Being,
> to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
> philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
> record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
> central person in the history of the world.

Thats a long winded way of saying "I believe god created life because the
bible says so".



> Those who go through the Bible 'with a fine toothcomb to find
> contrdictions do so to maintain their secularistic belief system.


No, some go through the bible to discover it's origins as an evolved work
of man. (heh - the bible was evolved, not created, geddit?)

> I have looked at quite a number of topics this morning and now do not
> wish to repeat that process.

Likewise. the sooner you stop posting the same tired old rubbish, the
better.

> In one topic the issue of the flat earth and the Bible was brought up
> again.
>
> The following websites may be of interst:-

AiG is worthless as a cite, Gladys. It's discredited bunk.



> Creation scientists have just as much right to be heard publically as
> do the Evolutionary scientists.

"Right to be heard" is not equivalent with "Right to declare your pet
spiritualistic religious dogma as being factually correct in opposition
to the science.".



> Gladys Swager



JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-14 07:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Jesus H Christ wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
<snip>
>
> Firstly, you're AGAIN confusing evolutionary biology and the theory of
> evolution with scientific hypotheses around abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
from non-living things.

I would suggest that you leave a completely sterilised piece of wood in
completely sterilised water and watch that for ...........(weeks,
months, years)!!!!!
to decide whether life of itself has come into being.

A scientist working with various chemicals and 'activating' (if that is
the right word to use) them with electrical charges - whatever - does
not prove that, originally in the past, thousands or millions of years
ago, living came from non-living.
Granted, I am giving simplified examples!

<snip> ......... "proof" isn't required.
>
Science has two definitions
1. Set up a hypothesis. Test, retest, tabulate data. Make your
conclusions/ indicate the
hypothesis is proved.
2. Set up a hypothesis about what might have happened in the past.
Observe in the
present/ set up an experiement which, according to certain
reasonings, matches the
conditions in the past.
Draw conclusions that the hypothesis was right according to the
reasonings.
But what if the reasonings were based on false premises?????????

<snip>
>
> Actually, there's a LOT of scientific research that addresses these kinds
> of questions.

(ie abiogenesis -Gladys)

> They just don't get written up where you're read them - their reaserch
> gets written up in scientific journals and not in church flyers.
>
So they are only reviewed by those who purchase those journals or who
have access to them in University libraries.

> > but the implication is there that there was no Almighty God involved.
>
Because the scinetists doing that research believe that no Almighty God
was involved!!!!

<snip>

> > The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living Being,
> > to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
> > philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
> > record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
> > central person in the history of the world.
>
> Thats a long winded way of saying "I believe god created life because the
> bible says so".
>
I believe God created life because Jesus Christ (God in human form) the
Triune God
demonstrated that He could heal the sick, change water into wine,
create food for thousands from a small amount, bring the dead back to
life by the power of His word, come back to life himself after His
crucifixion and ascend into Heaven.
>
> > Those who go through the Bible 'with a fine toothcomb to find
> > contrdictions do so to maintain their secularistic belief system.
>
> No, some go through the bible to discover it's origins as an evolved work
> of man. (heh - the bible was evolved, not created, geddit?)
>
The Bible was not evolved. It is a collection of writings, history,
prophecy, poetry written by people who believed that God was directing
them.

<snip>
>
> "Right to be heard" is not equivalent with "Right to declare your pet
> spiritualistic religious dogma as being factually correct in opposition
> to the science.".
>
You and the other scientists who share your ideas do not want other
ideas to be presented.

My assessment of the post-war years is that secularists, including
those who accepted evolution, worked deceitfully, using probationary
teachers to implement their no-physical punishment programme and when
increased behaviour problems came in the 1950's, then used public
moneys to bring about changes in teacher education - extra year of
schooling and teacher education - making the accusation that teachers
who had used physical punishment had caused the behaviour problems,
then for reduced class sizes, appointed ancillary staff and provided
more resources to imply that they were the ones more interested in
children's welfare, even using the ideas of teachers, such as myself,
(with, granted, some of their own) for their own self-aggrandisement
through the media.

Secular scientists wanted to say that they were leading the world into
a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-04-15 17:05:23 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jesus H Christ wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>> news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Firstly, you're AGAIN confusing evolutionary biology and the theory of
>> evolution with scientific hypotheses around abiogenesis.
>
> Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
> from non-living things.
>
> I would suggest that you leave a completely sterilised piece of wood in
> completely sterilised water and watch that for ...........(weeks,
> months, years)!!!!!
> to decide whether life of itself has come into being.
>
> A scientist working with various chemicals and 'activating' (if that is
> the right word to use) them with electrical charges - whatever - does
> not prove that, originally in the past, thousands or millions of years
> ago, living came from non-living.
> Granted, I am giving simplified examples!

No, it doesn't *prove* that. The point is that it's still a valid
hypothesis, and will continue to be so until it's conclusively demonstrated
that it could *not* have happened that way. A personal belief in creationism
is not such a demonstration.


>
> <snip> ......... "proof" isn't required.
>>
> Science has two definitions
> 1. Set up a hypothesis. Test, retest, tabulate data. Make your
> conclusions/ indicate the
> hypothesis is proved.
> 2. Set up a hypothesis about what might have happened in the past.
> Observe in the
> present/ set up an experiement which, according to certain
> reasonings, matches the
> conditions in the past.
> Draw conclusions that the hypothesis was right according to the
> reasonings.
> But what if the reasonings were based on false premises?????????

Then the conclusions are overturned. That's how science works. That's why
"the theory of evolution" isn't some kind of static immobile dogma, it's a
field of scientific investigation in which new information is constantly
coming to light.



>
> <snip>
>>
>> Actually, there's a LOT of scientific research that addresses these kinds
>> of questions.
>
> (ie abiogenesis -Gladys)
>
>> They just don't get written up where you're read them - their reaserch
>> gets written up in scientific journals and not in church flyers.
>>
> So they are only reviewed by those who purchase those journals or who
> have access to them in University libraries.

Are you talking about peer review, or general reviews by the readership? And
if the latter, are you implying that only an affluent elite have access to
scientific journals?


>> > but the implication is there that there was no Almighty God involved.
>>
> Because the scinetists doing that research believe that no Almighty God
> was involved!!!!

Do you know all of them personally, and have you quizzed them about their
religious beliefs? The possibility that a supernatural/deist/theist
explanation is the only option still remains, until all other possible
avenues have been exhausted - which, so far, they haven't.

>
> <snip>
>
>> > The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living Being,
>> > to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
>> > philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
>> > record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
>> > central person in the history of the world.
>>
>> Thats a long winded way of saying "I believe god created life because the
>> bible says so".
>>
> I believe God created life because Jesus Christ (God in human form) the
> Triune God
> demonstrated that He could heal the sick, change water into wine,
> create food for thousands from a small amount, bring the dead back to
> life by the power of His word, come back to life himself after His
> crucifixion and ascend into Heaven.

Which is, as you say, a matter of belief, not of science.

>>
>> > Those who go through the Bible 'with a fine toothcomb to find
>> > contrdictions do so to maintain their secularistic belief system.
>>
>> No, some go through the bible to discover it's origins as an evolved work
>> of man. (heh - the bible was evolved, not created, geddit?)
>>
> The Bible was not evolved. It is a collection of writings, history,
> prophecy, poetry written by people who believed that God was directing
> them.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> "Right to be heard" is not equivalent with "Right to declare your pet
>> spiritualistic religious dogma as being factually correct in opposition
>> to the science.".
>>
> You and the other scientists who share your ideas do not want other
> ideas to be presented.

Scientists are perfectly happy for other *scientific* ideas to be presented.

>
> My assessment of the post-war years is that secularists, including
> those who accepted evolution, worked deceitfully, using probationary
> teachers to implement their no-physical punishment programme and when
> increased behaviour problems came in the 1950's, then used public
> moneys to bring about changes in teacher education - extra year of
> schooling and teacher education - making the accusation that teachers
> who had used physical punishment had caused the behaviour problems,
> then for reduced class sizes, appointed ancillary staff and provided
> more resources to imply that they were the ones more interested in
> children's welfare, even using the ideas of teachers, such as myself,
> (with, granted, some of their own) for their own self-aggrandisement
> through the media.

Gladys, apart from the tenuous and contrived connection of "secularists,
including those who accepted evolution", this has absolutely nothing to do
with the points being made.


> Secular scientists wanted to say that they were leading the world into
> a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
> was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
> published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
> apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
> SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And neither does that. Except that accusing scientists of "arrogance", in
this context, seems remarkably pot-kettle.

Jani
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-16 07:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Jani wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
> > from non-living things. I would suggest that you leave a completely sterilised piece of > > wood in completely sterilised water and watch that for ...........(weeks,
> > months, years)!!!!! to decide whether life of itself has come into being.
> > A scientist working with various chemicals and 'activating' (if that is
> > the right word to use) them with electrical charges - whatever - does
> > not prove that, originally in the past, thousands or millions of years
> > ago, living came from non-living. Granted, I am giving simplified examples!
>
> No, it doesn't *prove* that. The point is that it's still a valid
> hypothesis, and will continue to be so until it's conclusively demonstrated
> that it could *not* have happened that way. A personal belief in creationism
> is not such a demonstration.
>
I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from
non-living'.
> >
Obviously, reationists can't prove scientifically that Almighty God
created in the past.
Inferences have to be made from observations in the present.

<snip>
>
> >> They just don't get written up where you'v read them - their reaserch
> >> gets written up in scientific journals and not in church flyers.
>
> > So they are only reviewed by those who purchase those journals or who
> > have access to them in University libraries.
>
> Are you talking about peer review, or general reviews by the readership? And
> if the latter, are you implying that only an affluent elite have access to
> scientific journals?
>
'Affluent elite'was not what meant. There would be both accredited
scientists and lay persons very interested in scientific topics who
would purchase such journals.
>
> Do you know all of them personally, and have you quizzed them about their
> religious beliefs? The possibility that a supernatural/deist/theist
> explanation is the only option still remains, until all other possible
> avenues have been exhausted - which, so far, they haven't.
>
No

> > <snip>
> >
> >> > The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living Being,
> >> > to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
> >> > philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
> >> > record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
> >> > central person in the history of the world.
> >>
> >> That' a long winded way of saying "I believe god created life because the
> >> bible says so".
> >>
> > I believe God created life because Jesus Christ (God in human form) the
> > Triune God demonstrated that He could heal the sick, change water into wine,
> > create food for thousands from a small amount, bring the dead back to
> > life by the power of His word, come back to life himself after His
> > crucifixion and ascend into Heaven.
>
> Which is, as you say, a matter of belief, not of science.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > You and the other scientists who share your ideas do not want other
> > ideas to be presented.
>
> Scientists are perfectly happy for other *scientific* ideas to be presented.
>
Not always!

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Referred Journals?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Dunce Cap for Creationists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/ 0114dini.asp

Standing upright for Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/upright.asp
>
> > Secular scientists want to say that they were leading the world into
> > a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
> > was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
> > published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
> > apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
> > SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And neither does that. Except that accusing scientists of "arrogance", in
> this context, seems remarkably pot-kettle.
>
If scientists are prepared to accept the opinions of the author of that
text and the cartoonist who illustrated it that they are the ones who
will lead the world into a better future and that those of the various
world's religions are to march behind them then they can be termed
'arrogant'! 'The pot calling the kettle black' - an idiomatic form
from the time of fuel (wood-burning) stoves of my youth and previously
- does not apply in this situation.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-04-16 10:28:39 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jani wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
> <snip>
>> >
>> > Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
>> > from non-living things. I would suggest that you leave a completely
>> > sterilised piece of > > wood in completely sterilised water and watch
>> > that for ...........(weeks,
>> > months, years)!!!!! to decide whether life of itself has come into
>> > being.
>> > A scientist working with various chemicals and 'activating' (if that is
>> > the right word to use) them with electrical charges - whatever - does
>> > not prove that, originally in the past, thousands or millions of years
>> > ago, living came from non-living. Granted, I am giving simplified
>> > examples!
>>
>> No, it doesn't *prove* that. The point is that it's still a valid
>> hypothesis, and will continue to be so until it's conclusively
>> demonstrated
>> that it could *not* have happened that way. A personal belief in
>> creationism
>> is not such a demonstration.
>>
> I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
> future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
> test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from
> non-living'.

Simple; by doing it. People would still be quite free to say they didn't
*believe* it happened that way, but not to say it could *not* have happened
that way.


>> >
> Obviously, reationists can't prove scientifically that Almighty God
> created in the past.
> Inferences have to be made from observations in the present.

Yes, but there's no point confining your observations solely to biblical
texts, and ignoring everything else.

>
> <snip>
>>
>> >> They just don't get written up where you'v read them - their reaserch
>> >> gets written up in scientific journals and not in church flyers.
>>
>> > So they are only reviewed by those who purchase those journals or who
>> > have access to them in University libraries.
>>
>> Are you talking about peer review, or general reviews by the readership?
>> And
>> if the latter, are you implying that only an affluent elite have access
>> to
>> scientific journals?
>>
> 'Affluent elite'was not what meant. There would be both accredited
> scientists and lay persons very interested in scientific topics who
> would purchase such journals.

Then I don't understand your complaint that the journals are not available
to all. The OP said that the research was available in scientific journals,
and you said these were only reviewed by "those who purchase those journals
or who have access to them in University libraries". So, what is stopping
anyone who wants to from purchasing them?


>>
>> Do you know all of them personally, and have you quizzed them about their
>> religious beliefs? The possibility that a supernatural/deist/theist
>> explanation is the only option still remains, until all other possible
>> avenues have been exhausted - which, so far, they haven't.
>>
> No
>
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> > The origin of life by the eternally existing supernatual living
>> >> > Being,
>> >> > to whom some give the term the Intelligent Designer, is a logical,
>> >> > philosophical, religious (faith) statement that within the Biblical
>> >> > record is supported by Jesus Christ whom Christians assert is the
>> >> > central person in the history of the world.
>> >>
>> >> That' a long winded way of saying "I believe god created life because
>> >> the
>> >> bible says so".
>> >>
>> > I believe God created life because Jesus Christ (God in human form) the
>> > Triune God demonstrated that He could heal the sick, change water into
>> > wine,
>> > create food for thousands from a small amount, bring the dead back to
>> > life by the power of His word, come back to life himself after His
>> > crucifixion and ascend into Heaven.
>>
>> Which is, as you say, a matter of belief, not of science.
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> > You and the other scientists who share your ideas do not want other
>> > ideas to be presented.
>>
>> Scientists are perfectly happy for other *scientific* ideas to be
>> presented.
>>
> Not always!
>
> Do Creationists Publish in Notable Referred Journals?
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

That one says, basically, that the scientist's personal religious belief is
irrelevant, if his work is scientific. That's fine. It also says that
science journals are not the place for creationist religious propaganda -
which is also fine. The objection is not to scientists who happen to believe
in creationism, but to scientists who allow that belief to colour their
scientific objectivity.


>
> Dunce Cap for Creationists?
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/ 0114dini.asp

Link didn't work.

>
> Standing upright for Creation
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/upright.asp

Are you arguing that Porter *wasn't* published because he was a creationist?
I don't think anyone would have cared much if he thought the human spine was
invented by the Great Pink Unicorn, as long as his research into how it
works was sound.


>>
>> > Secular scientists want to say that they were leading the world into
>> > a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
>> > was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
>> > published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
>> > apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
>> > SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> And neither does that. Except that accusing scientists of "arrogance", in
>> this context, seems remarkably pot-kettle.
>>
> If scientists are prepared to accept the opinions of the author of that
> text and the cartoonist who illustrated it that they are the ones who
> will lead the world into a better future and that those of the various
> world's religions are to march behind them then they can be termed
> 'arrogant'!

I've no doubt you can produce evidence that this in indeed how all
scientists think, and that they hold up the author of the text and his
illustrator as role models?



'The pot calling the kettle black' - an idiomatic form
> from the time of fuel (wood-burning) stoves of my youth and previously
> - does not apply in this situation.

No, you're right - since science comes from the starting-point of how little
we know and how much there is to learn, it's not arrogant. Arrogance is the
domain of religious dogmatists.

Jani
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-17 10:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Jani,
What you have told me in your posting of April 16, 8 : 28 pm is that
evolution is 'a valid hypothesis'.

Defintion of 'hypothesis' - Macquarie Pocket Dictionary
1. a proposition, an idea, a theory or other statement adopted as a
starting point for discussion, investigation, study etc
2. a statement accepted as basic in an argument
3. a guess, an assumption.

I would be of the opinion that you would accept the second definition,
while others would accept the first or third definition.

You further state that (evolution) ' will continue to be so until it's
conclusively demonstrated that (evolution) could *not* have happened
that way.

My reading of Internet articles and school texts is that, in most
instances, evolution HAS BEEN PRESENTED as having happened.

Facts of Evolution: Embryology
http://homelink.net/~douglasofcalifornia/science/evolution/facts05.html

Last paragraph "This is not to suggest that these facts of embryology
can have NO OTHER EXPLANATION (emphasis
mine).
But they do have THAT POSSIBLE EXPLANATION,( " " )
and that makes them EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. ( " " )

That brings in the definition (above) ie. Hypothesis = an assumption.

Similarities in DNA and other physical attributes can also indicate a
Designer, Almighty God.
As that possibility exists a statement should be placed on all
materials giving information about evolution that it is
'A THEORY THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED'.
Gladys Swager
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-17 23:51:14 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

At the end of this posting (which I am now reposting) I mentioned
similarities between living organisms.

The following websites indicate what Creationists say on this matter:-

What about similarities and other such arguments for evolution?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/AnswersBook/arguments7.asp

Similarities don't prove evolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/evolution.asp
Gladys Swager

> Jani,
> What you have told me in your posting of April 16, 8 : 28 pm is that
> evolution is 'a valid hypothesis'.
>
> Defintion of 'hypothesis' - Macquarie Pocket Dictionary
> 1. a proposition, an idea, a theory or other statement adopted as a
> starting point for discussion, investigation, study etc
> 2. a statement accepted as basic in an argument
> 3. a guess, an assumption.
>
> I would be of the opinion that you would accept the second definition,
> while others would accept the first or third definition.
>
> You further state that (evolution) ' will continue to be so until it's
> conclusively demonstrated that (evolution) could *not* have happened
> that way.
>
> My reading of Internet articles and school texts is that, in most
> instances, evolution HAS BEEN PRESENTED as having happened.
>
> Facts of Evolution: Embryology
> http://homelink.net/~douglasofcalifornia/science/evolution/facts05.html
>
> Last paragraph "This is not to suggest that these facts of embryology
> can have NO OTHER EXPLANATION (emphasis
> mine).
> But they do have THAT POSSIBLE EXPLANATION,( " " )
> and that makes them EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. ( " " )
>
> That brings in the definition (above) ie. Hypothesis = an assumption.
>
> Similarities in DNA and other physical attributes can also indicate a
> Designer, Almighty God.
> As that possibility exists a statement should be placed on all
> materials giving information about evolution that it is
> 'A THEORY THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED'.
> Gladys Swager
Ken Smith
2006-04-18 03:11:03 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

>Jani,
>What you have told me in your posting of April 16, 8 : 28 pm is that
>evolution is 'a valid hypothesis'.

>Defintion of 'hypothesis' - Macquarie Pocket Dictionary
>1. a proposition, an idea, a theory or other statement adopted as a
>starting point for discussion, investigation, study etc
> 2. a statement accepted as basic in an argument
> 3. a guess, an assumption.

>I would be of the opinion that you would accept the second definition,
>while others would accept the first or third definition.

>You further state that (evolution) ' will continue to be so until it's
>conclusively demonstrated that (evolution) could *not* have happened
>that way.

>My reading of Internet articles and school texts is that, in most
>instances, evolution HAS BEEN PRESENTED as having happened.

Please, Gladys, all scientists (excluding those who call themselves
"creation scientists") accept that evolution happened.
Even creationists beluieve that evolution happened, though the rate of
evolution since Noah's flood to get to all our present life forms is
so staggering that it's simply laughable.

[rest deleted]

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`If you want a religion, if you need a religion, then find one. ... But
don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a
religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-18 06:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
.>
>
> Please, Gladys, all scientists (excluding those who call themselves
> "creation scientists") accept that evolution happened.
> Even creationists believe that evolution happened, though the rate of
> evolution since Noah's flood to get to all our present life forms is
> so staggering that it's simply laughable.
>
Is it? See website:-

Aig's response to PBS-TV series Evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924Ep1.asp
Creation scientists accept that change can occur within a 'kind' -
family, genus, species.
They do not accept that change can occur between one family and another
family -
eg. cats can't become dogs, dinosaurs couldn't become birds.
Even a horse (female) and a donkey (male) can reproduce (offspring -
a mule) but it is infertile.
Gladys Swager

<snip>
Ken Smith
2006-04-19 23:54:56 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Ken Smith wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
><snip>
>.>
>>
>> Please, Gladys, all scientists (excluding those who call themselves
>> "creation scientists") accept that evolution happened.
>> Even creationists believe that evolution happened, though the rate of
>> evolution since Noah's flood to get to all our present life forms is
>> so staggering that it's simply laughable.
>>
>Is it? See website:-

>Aig's response to PBS-TV series Evolution
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924Ep1.asp
>Creation scientists accept that change can occur within a 'kind' -
>family, genus, species.

Now I'm no expert in biological nomenclature, but this seems to be
just what scientists have been looking for.
I'll have to dig out something about primates - Dawkins' "The
Ancestor's Tale" might be a good start - and see just which
classification they fall into.
I suspect it might be family - so chimpanzees and humans have evolved
from some common ancestor, according to creationists.

>They do not accept that change can occur between one family and another
>family -
>eg. cats can't become dogs, dinosaurs couldn't become birds.

Not all the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, Gladys.
Some survived.
But now we call them "birds", not "dinosaurs".

>Even a horse (female) and a donkey (male) can reproduce (offspring -
>a mule) but it is infertile.
>Gladys Swager

><snip>


Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`So I became convinced that humans and aliens are bound to be good friends
if they have only half a chance. You see, sir, we spent those two hours
telling dirty jokes.' Tommy Dort, in "First Contact"
Theo Bekkers
2006-04-28 02:23:56 UTC
Permalink
"Ken Smith" wrote

> Not all the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, Gladys.
> Some survived.
> But now we call them "birds", not "dinosaurs".

A bird named Gladys? :-)

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-30 00:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> ............ so chimpanzees and humans have evolved
> from some common ancestor, according to creationists.
>
Those who call themselves 'Progressive evolutionists' (believe that God
directed evolutionary change between species, genus, family)
OR believe that chimpanzees and humans have evolved from some common
ancestor.

However, Biblically, (Genesis 1 : 27) God created man 'in His own
image' - perfect as God is perfect.
God did not create man in the image of a chimpanzee or in the image of
'an unknown common ancestor' of both chimpanzee and man.

> >They do not accept that change can occur between one family and another
> >family -
> >eg. cats can't become dogs, dinosaurs couldn't become birds.
>
> Not all the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, Gladys.
> Some survived. But now we call them "birds", not "dinosaurs".
>
Bird Evolution
http://www.answersingenesis/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

A more technical article is found at:-
On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds

http://trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp

God and Evolution: do they mix?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp

<snip>
Ken, I am aware that you do not approve of Answers in Genesis websites.

However, others may be interested in what has been written in the above
sites.
Gladys Swager
Jani
2006-04-18 10:55:48 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> Jani,
> What you have told me in your posting of April 16, 8 : 28 pm is that
> evolution is 'a valid hypothesis'.

Please re-read the post in question. The comment does not refer to
evolution, it refers to abiogenesis.

Jani
<snip irrelevant material referring to evolution>
Ken Smith
2006-04-18 03:07:30 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Jani wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> > Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
>> > from non-living things. I would suggest that you leave a completely sterilised piece of > > wood in completely sterilised water and watch that for ...........(weeks,
>> > months, years)!!!!! to decide whether life of itself has come into being.
>> > A scientist working with various chemicals and 'activating' (if that is
>> > the right word to use) them with electrical charges - whatever - does
>> > not prove that, originally in the past, thousands or millions of years
>> > ago, living came from non-living. Granted, I am giving simplified examples!
>>
>> No, it doesn't *prove* that. The point is that it's still a valid
>> hypothesis, and will continue to be so until it's conclusively demonstrated
>> that it could *not* have happened that way. A personal belief in creationism
>> is not such a demonstration.
>>
>I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
>future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
>test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from
>non-living'.

Careful, Gladys.
You might live until the time when scientists do actually create a
self-reproducing entity in a test-tube.

Then where does your argument go?

It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional
fossils do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more
and more such fossils keep being uncovered.
Like the Tiktaalik which was announced a couple of weeks ago, and got
a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7 April.

So far, the reaction of creationists has been ither silence, or
something so ludicrous that it's been good for a laugh.

[rest deleted]

>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`If you want a religion, if you need a religion, then find one. ... But
don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a
religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-18 05:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

<snip>
>
> >I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
> >future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
> >test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from
> >non-living'.
>
> Careful, Gladys.
> You might live until the time when scientists do actually create a
> self-reproducing entity in a test-tube. Then where does your argument go?
>
If that DID happen in my lifetime, I would say that there would be one
vital difference.
A human / Humans would have been involved, whereas back millions of
years ago for non-living to become living from various chemicals no
other living organism was involved in the process.

> It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional
> fossils do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more
> and more such fossils keep being uncovered.
> Like the Tiktaalik which was announced a couple of weeks ago, and got
> a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7 April.
> So far, the reaction of creationists has been either silence, or
> something so ludicrous that it's been good for a laugh.
>
I did not see that article, nor the Letters to the editor.

Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are
extinct within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been
ascribed?
OR
that they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
characteristics (apes and humans)
I would say that humans should not be grouped with apes)?
Evolutionists want the connection through from molecules to humans.

I have looked into cladograms again.
I find the new form has changed the 'tree of life' (1962 NSW General
Science Syllabus) so that no longer are all living forms supposed to
have come from bacteria and fungai.
There is an unknown ancestor for all living organisms. Will it ever be
found?

Amongst my papers I found the following print-out this morning.

Scientist shoots down EVILution - by Laurence D. Smart, B.Sc.Agr.
Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

http://www.voy.com/84577/45.html

> <snip>. ... But don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"

If you don't believe that Almighty God, the Creator, Triune God,
exists,
then I would suggest that you need to assume that He exists when all
the marvels of the Universe
and living organisms are understood, even in their simplest components.

It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
inanimate (not living) sources.
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
2006-04-18 12:57:33 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote:

<snip>

> Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are
> extinct within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been
> ascribed?
> OR
> that they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
> characteristics (apes and humans)
> I would say that humans should not be grouped with apes)?

So then please tell us in which group ER 1470 and ER 1813 belong,
Gladys:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/14701813.html

You may use any Creationist literature available to assist you in
giving _your_ answer.

No tedious digressions/detours please.


<snip>


Sean McHugh
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Theo Bekkers
2006-04-19 13:17:39 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

> It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
> inanimate (not living) sources.

Does that sentence mean you don't believe that God made Adam out of
dirt?

Theo
Ken Smith
2006-04-20 00:02:02 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:

>"***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

>> It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
>> inanimate (not living) sources.

>Does that sentence mean you don't believe that God made Adam out of
>dirt?

Reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago.
Gios was having a discussion with a scientist about the creation of
life. The scientist said that with our present knowledge, it would be
possible to at least make some of the absic chemicals which go to make
living organisms from dirt.

"Interesting", says God. "Can you show me how?"

"Sure!" says the scientist, and bends down to pick up some dirt.

"No, no." says God. "You have to use your own dirt."

>Theo

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`So I became convinced that humans and aliens are bound to be good friends
if they have only half a chance. You see, sir, we spent those two hours
telling dirty jokes.' Tommy Dort, in "First Contact"
Epigram
2006-04-20 02:10:48 UTC
Permalink
On 04/20/2006 08:02:02 ***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:

> "Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> writes:

>> "***@ozemail.com.au" wrote

>>> It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
>>> inanimate (not living) sources.

>> Does that sentence mean you don't believe that God made Adam out of dirt?

> Reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago. Gios was having a discussion
> with a scientist about the creation of life. The scientist said that with
> our present knowledge, it would be possible to at least make some of the
> absic chemicals which go to make living organisms from dirt.

> "Interesting", says God. "Can you show me how?"

> "Sure!" says the scientist, and bends down to pick up some dirt.

> "No, no." says God. "You have to use your own dirt."

>> Theo

> Salaam Ken Smith

Worthy contender for Joke of the Day :^)

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Ken Smith
2006-04-19 23:48:24 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>Ken Smith wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

><snip>
> >
>> >I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
>> >future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
>> >test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from
>> >non-living'.
>>
>> Careful, Gladys.
>> You might live until the time when scientists do actually create a
>> self-reproducing entity in a test-tube. Then where does your argument go?
>>
>If that DID happen in my lifetime, I would say that there would be one
>vital difference.
>A human / Humans would have been involved, whereas back millions of
>years ago for non-living to become living from various chemicals no
>other living organism was involved in the process.

So?
The atmosphere was very different in those days - there was virtually
no oxygen around.
And another major difefrence is that human working life is around 40
years, rather than the 800 million years (give or take a couple of
hundred million years) between the formation of the earth and the
first traces of life.

>> It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional
>> fossils do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more
>> and more such fossils keep being uncovered.
>> Like the Tiktaalik which was announced a couple of weeks ago, and got
>> a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7 April.
>> So far, the reaction of creationists has been either silence, or
>> something so ludicrous that it's been good for a laugh.
>>
>I did not see that article, nor the Letters to the editor.

Tsk, tsk, Gladys.
Try your nearest library and see if they have a copy.

>Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are
>extinct within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been
>ascribed?
>OR
>that they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
>characteristics (apes and humans)
>I would say that humans should not be grouped with apes)?
>Evolutionists want the connection through from molecules to humans.

Ah, now *you* are using the word "kind".
Could you please let us know just what *you*, not some other
creationist, understand by this word?
Gish has shown that he is extremely ignorant, since he lumps all the
worms, which cover a number of phyla, into one "kind" among the
invertebrates, and also says that bees, which (as far as I know)
constitute a genus, though a knowledgeable apiarist would probably
correct me, are also a seperate "basic kind".

But if Tiktaalik is another "kind", as you suggest in the second part,
this means that virtually every species is a separate "kind" - and
it's the problems with getting all the "kinds" of bacteria onto the
Ark which Gish (and other creationists) can't bear to face.

And there's nothing wrong with scientists changing their minds about
the number of main divisions within living organisms as more and more
is found out.
This is the nature of science - new data can sometimes lead to
revising old ideas, unlike creationists who insist that there ideas
are fixed, no matter how much evidence secintists produce to show that
they are wrong.

>I have looked into cladograms again.
>I find the new form has changed the 'tree of life' (1962 NSW General
>Science Syllabus) so that no longer are all living forms supposed to
>have come from bacteria and fungai.
>There is an unknown ancestor for all living organisms. Will it ever be
>found?

Possibly.
Consuly a paleomicrobiologist for a suggestion.

>Amongst my papers I found the following print-out this morning.

>Scientist shoots down EVILution - by Laurence D. Smart, B.Sc.Agr.
>Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

I wouldn't place too much reliance on a paper which describes someone
with a degree in agriculture, who appears to have his major
qualifications in teaching, as a "scientist".

>http://www.voy.com/84577/45.html

>> <snip>. ... But don't, for God's sake, assuming He exists, ever make science into a religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices and Desires"

>If you don't believe that Almighty God, the Creator, Triune God,
>exists,
>then I would suggest that you need to assume that He exists when all
>the marvels of the Universe
>and living organisms are understood, even in their simplest components.

>It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
>inanimate (not living) sources.
>Gladys Swager

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`So I became convinced that humans and aliens are bound to be good friends
if they have only half a chance. You see, sir, we spent those two hours
telling dirty jokes.' Tommy Dort, in "First Contact"
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-05-08 01:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
.>
> >> It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional
> >> fossils do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more
> >> and more such fossils keep being uncovered.
> >> Like the Tiktaalik which was announced a couple of weeks ago, and got
> >> a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7 April.

<snip>
>
> But if Tiktaalik is another "kind", as you suggest ..........

Within a family/species/genus there are many different animals. They
are changes within their groups - not changes from one group to
another.
While there are varieties in, say, the dog family ( canidaie), a dog
will not change into, say, the cat family (felidae).
The word 'kind' is given the Genesis account thousands of years before
modern classification systems were devised.
In fact, in respect of dogs, the original creation could have been a
wolf-like animal that had within it the genes to change into the many
varieties within the family 'canidae' that are in the world today.

The scientific issue is whether Tiktaalik was in an evolutionary line
or if it was one in a created family/species/genus.
I would think it would not be possible to estaimate the number of
animals that lived in ancient times.
It would be impossible, even if such could be calculated, to determine
the percentage of fossils that have been dug up in modern times for the
fact is that all the earth's surface has not been turned over to find
all the fossils.

Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Gone fishin' for a missing link? A preliminary response
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0406fishin.asp

Two websites giving views on this fossil. The first I haven't checked
whether it will come onto my screen; the second I have, so if the link
does not work there will be another reason for that.

> this means that virtually every species is a separate "kind" - and
> it's the problems with getting all the "kinds" of bacteria onto the
> Ark which Gish (and other creationists) can't bear to face.
>
It does not imply that every species is a separate 'kind'. As for the
bacteria (etc) during the time of the flood, I have read that they were
quite capable of floating on debris and I have assumed that they even
existed on the inside walls, floors of the Ark. Those which infest
animals would be in the internal anatomy of those creatures.

> And there's nothing wrong with scientists changing their minds about
> the number of main divisions within living organisms as more and more
> is found out.
> This is the nature of science - new data can sometimes lead to
> revising old ideas, unlike creationists who insist that their ideas
> are fixed, no matter how much evidence secintists produce to show that
> they are wrong.
>
Creation scientists can also change their ideas as more work/research
is done.
<snip>
>
> >Amongst my papers I found the following print-out this morning.
> >Scientist shoots down EVILution - by Laurence D. Smart, B.Sc.Agr.
> >Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed
>
<snip>
>
> >http://www.voy.com/84577/45.html
>
This website includes the following (from the many quotes given:
ACCUSATION: Creation scientists Operate from Preconceived Ideas......
If EVILutionists do not operate from preconceived ideas, then they have
a valid point.

The Evidence:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the latent absurdity of some
of its constructs.........we are forced by our a priori adherence to
material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations......that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door>" Richard
Lewontin, The New York Review, 1997

The Evidence <snip>. ... But don't, for God's sake, assuming He
exists, ever make science into a religion.' Alex Mair in "Devices
and Desires"
>
> >If you don't believe that Almighty God, the Creator, Triune God, exists,
> >then I would suggest that you need to assume that He exists when all the marvels of the Universe and
> > living organisms are understood, even in their simplest components.
> >It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
> >inanimate (not living) sources.

But that brings in abiogenesis. I have been told that is a different
study and is not included in the study of evolution. How convenient!
<snip>
Gladys Swager
Epigram
2006-04-20 01:47:41 UTC
Permalink
On 04/18/2006 13:43:11 "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Ken Smith wrote:

>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

>>> I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
>>> future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method -
>>> test, retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from non-living'.

>> Careful, Gladys. You might live until the time when scientists do
>> actually create a self-reproducing entity in a test-tube. Then where
>> does your argument go?

> If that DID happen in my lifetime, I would say that there would be one
> vital difference. A human / Humans would have been involved, whereas back
> millions of years ago for non-living to become living from various
> chemicals no other living organism was involved in the process.

How many times does this have to be said: with evolution, the "how" and "why" questions are moot.

For biologists, it doesn't matter how we came into being. It's a question that cosmologists can choose to look at, however.

For example, one popular group of theories for non-life to create life on Earth is for a comet or meteor that has a form of life on it to hit Earth and "spill" its life contents.

From where this comet's or meteorite's life came from becomes the next logical question.

We already know that some cyanobacteria and viruses can survive incredible ranges of tempreatures such as those in space, as well as surviving in vacuums.

>> It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional fossils
>> do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more and more
>> such fossils keep being uncovered. Like the Tiktaalik which was announced
>> a couple of weeks ago, and got a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7
>> April. So far, the reaction of creationists has been either silence, or
>> something so ludicrous that it's been good for a laugh.

> I did not see that article, nor the Letters to the editor.

> Isn't it possible thqt what are termed 'transitional fossils' are extinct
> within the (kind), family/genus, to which they have been ascribed? OR that
> they belong to another (kind), family/genus, with some common
> characteristics (apes and humans) I would say that humans should not be
> grouped with apes)? Evolutionists want the connection through from
> molecules to humans.

One step at a time (forgive the pun). Transitional fossils show palaeontologists that they are looking in the right direction, and that the theories they are using are on the right track.

Sometimes such discoveries mean adjustments to a theory or two, or a reclassifaction of a speicies.

> I have looked into cladograms again. I find the new form has changed the
> 'tree of life' (1962 NSW General Science Syllabus) so that no longer are
> all living forms supposed to have come from bacteria and fungai. There is
> an unknown ancestor for all living organisms. Will it ever be found?

Does it need to be?

[...]

> It is inconceivable that everything that exists could have come from
> inanimate (not living) sources. Gladys Swager

Why?

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Epigram
2006-04-20 01:28:26 UTC
Permalink
On 04/18/2006 11:07:30 ***@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:

> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:

>> Jani wrote:

>>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Abiogenesis - the theory or belief that living things can be produced
>>>> from non-living things. I would suggest that you leave a completely
>>>> sterilised piece of > > wood in completely sterilised water and watch
>>>> that for ...........(weeks, months, years)!!!!! to decide whether life
>>>> of itself has come into being. A scientist working with various
>>>> chemicals and 'activating' (if that is the right word to use) them with
>>>> electrical charges - whatever - does not prove that, originally in the
>>>> past, thousands or millions of years ago, living came from non-living.
>>>> Granted, I am giving simplified examples!

>>> No, it doesn't *prove* that. The point is that it's still a valid
>>> hypothesis, and will continue to be so until it's conclusively
>>> demonstrated that it could *not* have happened that way. A personal
>>> belief in creationism is not such a demonstration.

>> I would be interested to know how a scientist, working now or in the
>> future, could 'conclusively demonstrate' by the scientific method - test,
>> retest, - that sometime in the past 'living came from non-living'.

> Careful, Gladys. You might live until the time when scientists do actually
> create a self-reproducing entity in a test-tube.

> Then where does your argument go?

Why keep it just to organic life? If a program can procreate a replicant program, or a machine a replicant machine, then that satisfies most criteria. The fact that humans are needed to creat the proto program or the proto machine is moot.

> It's a bit like creationists who keep claiming that transitional fossils
> do not exist, and then having to face up to the fact that more and more
> such fossils keep being uncovered. Like the Tiktaalik which was announced
> a couple of weeks ago, and got a fair sized bit in "The Australian" on 7
> April.

> So far, the reaction of creationists has been ither silence, or something
> so ludicrous that it's been good for a laugh.

Don't worry, they will have to respond, for ,if not for their predicability, creationists are best known for their reactionism.

> [rest deleted]

>> Gladys Swager

> Salaam Ken Smith

--

Toby.

--

I saw a funny thing on the way here. So I laughed.
Sean McHugh
2006-04-18 12:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Gladys Caps Lock Swager wrote:

> Jani wrote:
> > "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message

<snip>

> > > Secular scientists want to say that they were leading the world into
> > > a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
> > > was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
> > > published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
> > > apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
> > > SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The irony needs for itself twenty-two exclamation marks. How ironic.

> > And neither does that. Except that accusing scientists of "arrogance", in
> > this context, seems remarkably pot-kettle.

> If scientists are prepared to accept the opinions of the author of that
> text and the cartoonist who illustrated it that they are the ones who
> will lead the world into a better future and that those of the various
> world's religions are to march behind them then they can be termed
> 'arrogant'! 'The pot calling the kettle black' - an idiomatic form
> from the time of fuel (wood-burning) stoves of my youth and previously
> - does not apply in this situation.

I doubt she needs for you to explain to her what she meant; though it
appears one needs to explain to you what she meant. She was broadly
hinting at how ironic it is that you call scientists arrogant. That
observation would most definitely "apply in this situation".


Sean McHugh
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Jani
2006-04-19 02:03:27 UTC
Permalink
"Sean McHugh" <***@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:***@shoal.net.au...
>
> Gladys Caps Lock Swager wrote:
>
>> Jani wrote:
>> > "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>> > > Secular scientists want to say that they were leading the world
>> > > into
>> > > a wonderful future with all the religions following behind them. That
>> > > was the impact of a cartoon in an HSC textbook on Social Issues
>> > > published about 1985, bought by me from a Second-hand dealer. (With
>> > > apologies I can't put my hand on the book, at the present moment.)
>> > > SUCH ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The irony needs for itself twenty-two exclamation marks. How ironic.
>
>> > And neither does that. Except that accusing scientists of "arrogance",
>> > in
>> > this context, seems remarkably pot-kettle.
>
>> If scientists are prepared to accept the opinions of the author of that
>> text and the cartoonist who illustrated it that they are the ones who
>> will lead the world into a better future and that those of the various
>> world's religions are to march behind them then they can be termed
>> 'arrogant'! 'The pot calling the kettle black' - an idiomatic form
>> from the time of fuel (wood-burning) stoves of my youth and previously
>> - does not apply in this situation.
>
> I doubt she needs for you to explain to her what she meant; though it
> appears one needs to explain to you what she meant. She was broadly
> hinting at how ironic it is that you call scientists arrogant. That
> observation would most definitely "apply in this situation".

Y'know, I come across very few scientists who are aggressively atheistic;
they're just, basically, not interested. Suggest that there might be some
long-distance Creator somewhere, and they're fine with that. Very Baconian.
Throw religion at them, as an equally valid paradigm, and they look at you
as if you're totally delusional. Which is quite correct :)

Jani
(not so much a fence-sitter, more a Bacon sarnie :)
Loading...