American interpretation
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is
what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the
adultery.

So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible
if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why
Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the
fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He
had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book.
B

Pure heresy! There's no way for you to know whether that is true or
not. You're wasting your time trying to find purpose in religious
scripture. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

I don't worship Alexander Pope.
I would agree that we can't judge God. We can't even judge ourselves let
alone properly judge each other. There is better love out there than "just
a piece of skin".

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze". Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported. So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself. But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that. Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?

American interpretation
 

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:07:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"

Hi Tom,

You are proving a rising tide deluges derelicts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:07:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"

Hi Tom,

You are proving a rising tide deluges derelicts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
Hopefully.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is
what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the
adultery.
So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible
if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why
Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the
fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He
had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book.
B
Pure heresy! There's no way for you to know whether that is true or
not. You're wasting your time trying to find purpose in religious
scripture. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

I don't worship Alexander Pope.
I would agree that we can't judge God. We can't even judge ourselves let
alone properly judge each other. There is better love out there than "just
a piece of skin".

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze". Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported. So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself. But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that. Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?


You don't worship Pope and probably haven't read him, either. Hitler was
a Christian, as was Savonarola, and King Leopold II of Belgium. There
was even a Fundie dictator in Guatemala, whose name escapes me, but who
was also a mass murderer. It's o.k. if you want to believe the universe
is only 6000 years old. Fine. It's also o.k. if you want to believe
you're morally superior to everyone you disagree with. But this is an
antenna newsgroup, not a holier-than-thou newsgroup. Unless you can
relate how God's Plan for the Universe includes antenna theory
revelations that will change Ham-radio-as-we-know-it-forever, take your
self-congratulatory theology to another venue.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

American interpretation
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.

Maybe I can connect my dipoles on sky hooks?

W0BF

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.


Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)


So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.



Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it. It takes almost as much faith to not
believe in evolution now as it does to believe in a flat earth.

Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis, is just as wrong as the flat earth of four
corners, the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's
shabby treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion,
however. The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The
truth was in fact no threat at all.


Back to antennas now.......

- Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Bruce W. Ellis wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?

It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -
Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.

We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.


What kind of mail reader do you use, I can look up how you can plonk me
and never hear from me again!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

snip


You don't worship Pope and probably haven't read him, either. Hitler was a
Christian, as was Savonarola, and King Leopold II of Belgium. There was
even a Fundie dictator in Guatemala, whose name escapes me, but who was
also a mass murderer. It's o.k. if you want to believe the universe is
only 6000 years old. Fine. It's also o.k. if you want to believe you're
morally superior to everyone you disagree with. But this is an antenna
newsgroup, not a holier-than-thou newsgroup. Unless you can relate how
God's Plan for the Universe includes antenna theory revelations that will
change Ham-radio-as-we-know-it-forever, take your self-congratulatory
theology to another venue.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Jesus said that not all that claim Him are His:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth
good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits
ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Thus, according to Jesus Himself, Hitler could not have been a Christian.
As for those Christians that have a "holier-than-thou" attitude, maybe you
dont know very many Christians.
If this is an antenna forum, Im sure you will not care to respond to this.

God bless you Tom.
B

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

No that was left to the pseudointellectuals.



Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that are
quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

But those processes are complex in themselves and will fail if reduced any
further.


The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

But that doesnt prove the human eye evolved from one a bacteria had. Even
that sensory cell that the bacteria had would cease to function if the
components of that cell were not all present and functioning.



So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

But it had to. If there were something there that was strictly mineral that
somehow, some way, in some miraclulous way turned into a living organism,
then it still originated from minerals.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement to
support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms adapt to
their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

He didnt say that atheism is a requirement. He said that atheists will say
that.




Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine kids
views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

This might interest you:
Eric -- Black fatigue-style pants, a white T-shirt inscribed with the words
Natural Selection on the front, black baseball cap with the letters "KMFDM"
on it (worn backwards), and a black trenchcoat (duster). Wore a black
fingerless glove on his right hand and black combat boots.


Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers
the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We
are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one
another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

Read "Hitlers Cross" by Lutzer to understand that Hitler was a manipulator,
especially of the Church. Also read the following:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth
good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits
ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

That quote is from the same One who gave the Sermon on the Mount. Hitler
was NOT a Christian.


And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City upon
a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we are
at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient argument of
disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution, and no science
disproving it.

If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that there is a lot of
evidence that goes against evolution.

It takes almost as much faith to not believe in evolution now as it does to
believe in a flat earth.

An ad hominem attack.


Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research in
evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served as a
spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything that
is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary processes
means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is Creationism.

Ok, what other mechanisms do you think there are? Aliens??


But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect your
faith.

But you pretend that it is a blind faith, and that is also intellectually
dishonest. There are many reasons for that faith, and intelligent design is
a very good one.


But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis,

Ther are no two different accounts. Its one in the same account. The Bible
is not always cronological.

is just as wrong as the flat earth of four corners,

Ancient civilization knew the earth was spherical. The Egyptians understood
this.

As for four corners, that is a saying along the lines as "where does the sun
rise?". Its an expression.

the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's shabby
treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion, however.
The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The truth was in
fact no threat at all.

Exactly.



Back to antennas now.......

- Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce W. Ellis"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:55 PM
Subject: American interpretation


Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.

Seems everyone has an opinion, and they sure dont mind voicing it. But if it
goes in a direction they dont like, they are quick to point that this is not
the place. I guess your qseudointellectual diatribe is king here. So be it.



W0BF

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:

SNIP huge amounts of nonsense

And PLONK.

tom
K0TAR

American interpretation
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Toss a coin:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_adultery.htm
(Note that the above web page is from the Islamic point of view).
Various parts of the bible offer different answers. The church still
hasn't officially recognized divorce, making half the US also
adulterous.

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

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adultery
"In Judaism, adultery was forbidden in the seventh commandment of the
Ten Commandments, but this did not apply to a married man having
relations with an unmarried woman. Only a married woman engaging in
sexual intercourse with another man counted as adultery, in which case
both the woman and the man were considered guilty."

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

American interpretation
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:54:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?

There's quite a bit on the topic he
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html
Basically, it was called "Elizabethan English". The 54 authors of the
1611 Authorized Version (there were several subsequent mutations and
revisions) did an excellent job of translation, organization, and
keeping the Anglicans, Puritans, and other cults from dominating the
final product.

In college, I read Chaucer in the original "English". It was painful
and only vaguely resembled English in any recognizable form.

Newton's Principia was published about 75 years after the King James
Bible, in 1686. All of Newton's scientific papers were in Latin. For
example, Principia:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WqaGuP1HqE0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Isaac +Newton%27s+Philosophiae+naturalis+principia+mathe matica#PPR1,M1
However, his correspondence was in fairly readable English, and not at
all like Olde English. There are several fragments at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_of_Principia_Mathematica
which show really weird punctuation and sentence structure. I guess
extra long comma spliced sentences were fashionable at the time. It's
difficult reading, but if one chops up the sentences into smaller
pieces and translated the idioms, it looks almost like modern English.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

American interpretation
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I guess
extra long comma spliced sentences were fashionable at the time.

Heck, they were still fashionable when I was in
high school.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

No that was left to the pseudointellectuals.



Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life.
If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

But those processes are complex in themselves and will fail if reduced
any further.


The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

But that doesnt prove the human eye evolved from one a bacteria had.
Even that sensory cell that the bacteria had would cease to function if
the components of that cell were not all present and functioning.



So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

But it had to. If there were something there that was strictly mineral
that somehow, some way, in some miraclulous way turned into a living
organism, then it still originated from minerals.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

He didnt say that atheism is a requirement. He said that atheists will
say that.




Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all
embraced it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

This might interest you:
Eric -- Black fatigue-style pants, a white T-shirt inscribed with the
words Natural Selection on the front, black baseball cap with the
letters "KMFDM" on it (worn backwards), and a black trenchcoat (duster).
Wore a black fingerless glove on his right hand and black combat boots.


Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our
ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is
Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants
to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

Read "Hitlers Cross" by Lutzer to understand that Hitler was a
manipulator, especially of the Church. Also read the following:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in
that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy
name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity."

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

That quote is from the same One who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
Hitler was NOT a Christian.

There are many people today who profess to be Christains, yet most of
their beliefs are straight old testament.



And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting
evolution, and no science disproving it.

If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that there is a lot
of evidence that goes against evolution.

It takes almost as much faith to not believe in evolution now as it
does to believe in a flat earth.

An ad hominem attack.

No, it isn't ad hominum. Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact. Things change. The
related disciplines that verify the concept are likewise wrong if Evo
is. All it will take to prove evolution wrong is if say modern humans
are found in very early sediments along with the critters we've found
there to date. But the evidence shows a forward movement of time, and
never backwards. Modern animals only appear in recent times. Ancient
ones show a terrmination. Those anomalies such as animals that haven't
changed much, or "rediscovered" animals once thought extinct are just
wonderous additions to life.



Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in
research in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory
have served as a spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

Ok, what other mechanisms do you think there are? Aliens??

Ohh careful there. Creationists who use the weak form of Intelligent
design claim the possibility of aliens creating life here.

But the entire argument in that regard is specious anyhow. Evolution has
not one single thing to say about the ultimate beginning of life. It
only deals with what happens afterward.



But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a
satisfactory manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have
faith that God created everything in it's present form." And that is
okay. I respect your faith.

But you pretend that it is a blind faith, and that is also
intellectually dishonest. There are many reasons for that faith, and
intelligent design is a very good one.

Okay, you have no blind faith? Do a lot of investigating of the physics
and chemistry and paleontology. Come up with experiments and refute it.

Intelligent design has performed no science, no peer reviewed research,
with the exception of one report that was immediately refuted.

Instead, the Intelligent design folks want to debate. Strangely enough,
that debate is envisioned as proving something. If evolution loses the
debate, is there no evolution. If it wins, is their no God?

Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get ID
insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Most distressing howevwer is the duality of the IDer's approach. the
switching between the weak ID that is brought out when trying to sneak
their belief into school science programs, (teach the controversy) and
the very same people saying that they want to replace the system as
taught now with science that is in alignment with the Christian faith.

I don't think God needs or wants anyone lying for him.



But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts
of creation in Genesis,

Ther are no two different accounts. Its one in the same account. The
Bible is not always cronological.

Don't know what to say here, Brian. Some times it's literal, some times
it's not, and sometimes we just pick and choose.


is just as wrong as the flat earth of four corners,

Ancient civilization knew the earth was spherical. The Egyptians
understood this.

The spherical earth concept started around 330 B.C. It was well known
during the middle ages. Oddly enough the resurgent Flat Earth, promoter,
Samuel Rowbotham, came up with his "Zoetitic Astronomy" system, in
around the mid 1800's which depended on his particular interpretation of
the Bible. Interestingly enough, in the 1800's he engaged in public
debates with leading scientists. One doesn't prove the other, of course,
but it's interesting to see that the more things change, the more they
remain the same.

I really don't want to belabor the group with much more of this, we need
to get back to discussions of Art's antenna designs.

All I would say is that I would suggest some personal research, and
repeat that evolution doesn't have a thing to do with origin, so just
perhaps, there are people out there who might want to manipulate others
with a red herring of an issue.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:

Seems everyone has an opinion, and they sure dont mind voicing it. But
if it goes in a direction they dont like, they are quick to point that this is
not the place. I guess your qseudointellectual diatribe is king here. So be it.

Really, it's not that bad. In fact given what happens to sensitive
topics in other newsgroups, I think we've all behaved pretty well in
here. Had some civil disagreements, and I was the only one who got
called any names.

A couple years ago, I cuddnt even spel sudointilectuyal - now I is one!
Take care, and Illegetimi non carborundrum. 8^)


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact.

Rhetorical question: What if evolution is just
one of the tools in God's toolbox?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

He does make quite a leap to the "family tree". Many such leaps seem to be
accepted as fact. The primordial soup explanation has yet to be proven and
the experiment cited as proof has already been debunked but it still finds
it's way into textbooks as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations. It
seems that our course of institutional investigations have lead to
censorship through active measures against those who don't fully buy into
it.

Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

That isn't what I meant. I was speaking of those functions without which
the organism is not viable. Your choice of a life form without the Blood
Clotting Cascade is an example of a life form that perhaps was designed as
food or at least highly expendable otherwise it would have been designed
with self-repair and defensive mechanisms in mind. Even if you don't
believe in ID, you indicate some knowledge of the kind of complex processes
I allude to.

The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

I didn't mention the Eye. How is it relevant? Bacteria is still life and
still highly complex at the molecular level.

So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

How is this a straw man? What "things had to happen first" for any life?
You justify my argument that it takes a leap of faith. Do you mean to say
that life cannot be created if we can't do it?


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

Darwin was a devout Atheist and that was the basic a priori of his
investigations and theory. We know that life forms adapt to their
surroundings. It is obvious. We don't find them changing from one species
to another. We don't even find fossil evidence of "missing link" organisms
that prove the great transitions of DNA between species.

Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?

Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

So you do believe in heaven? Or not? The shooters at Columbine where
wearing T-shirts that said "Natural Selection" and spent lots of time on
neo-Nazi web sites. It is a matter of evidence. We can't cross examine
them under oath (?) so they can't answer for their actions.

Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

This was bull crap propaganda so that he would have less trouble with
Christians, Like Obama, who is obviously preaching Marxist Secular Humanism
in his speeches, and evidence suggests, sought out his home church as a
forum for his political advancement after he lost to Bobby Rush for "not
being black enough" as his constituents put it. I don't think it imparts a
benefit of the doubt if he is a Christian for fleeting moments when he finds
himself in a church.

Not only was Hitler a known liar, he actually invoked a half-baked pagan
religion to support his Aryan beliefs.


"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

Manifest Destiny and Evolution come together as justifications of the
westward movements, genocide of the indigent American population, as well as
most of the genocides, mass murders and revolutions in the 19 and 20th
centuries.

And Jeremiah Wright gave sermons too. Citing preachers tells more about
you. Let's not go there because Jesus himself stated that "there will come
false prophets". You need to work on your discernment.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it. It takes almost as much faith to not
believe in evolution now as it does to believe in a flat earth.

"Flat earth" is nowhere in the Bible. What evidence supports that all life
is an adaptation from a single organism? What evidence supports that DNA
can change radically and be viable. Indeed prove that genetic mutation
actually can result in anything but a loss in material, thus result in a
De-evolution instead of evolution? Perhaps we are all adapted from ferns.
There is significantly more genetic material in ferns than most in the
animal kingdom. What can the new life form viably reproduce with. This
would seem to be most possible with reproduction by cell division, but
individual survivors would seem to be food at the point it emerged. Where
are the new single celled species that have sprung up spontaneously from
existing species?

Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Hold the presses! You mean they aren't just idiot superstitious morons?
But have actually researched the Macro Evolution theory as it applies to the
emergence of life and found it lacking?

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

That isn't my argument. Please don't assume that the above Blog "Either-Or"
arguments are the only ones out there. Is it your argument that no matter
how life came to be at all by any means could not have been spurred on by an
unseen force? Or that every miracle can be explained by accident or natural
progression of events? Perhaps the predictions that were fulfilled in the
Bible were simply intelligent assessment by natural progression. Although
you could point to those, it doesn't explain it all away.

Here is the philosophical problem. If the Universe follows a purely
predictable mechanism, or a combination of predictability and seemingly
random events, It does not prove or disprove a design. At this point, I
can't pose a definitive theory of how the Earth, Solar System, Universe or
Life came to be. The Bible is not a scientific journal, It is a historical
journal penned by those who didn't consider a scientific approach to
explaining any event. In many cases it is a narrative and in others it is a
legal documentary record of events, observations and inspirations. It is a
fascinating concept that it could have actually been orchestrated by the
Divine. Perhaps we could agree that although the scientific explanation is
lacking in scripture, we shouldn't dismiss the idea that there is no truth
underlying the explanations that is yet to be revealed. Once upon a time,
one could investigate while still believing in a creator. That seems to
have lost ground to Political constraints. My thought is that Macro
Evolution has become only one of many thoughts forced on a captive audience
by condescending liberals that are bringing society to crisis.


But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis, is just as wrong as the flat earth of four
corners, the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's
shabby treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion,
however. The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The
truth was in fact no threat at all.

Not my argument either. You make a great many assumptions of my arguments
and dismiss them as "straw man".
"There will come false prophets". they will be known by their works.

Back to antennas now.......

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations.

Sorry, that's exactly what the scientific method allows
us to do.

1. Form an hypothesis
2. Compare it to reality
3. If it doesn't fit, fine tune the hypothesis
4. Then goto 1, Else it is true

The fact that we humans share 95% of a chimpanzee's
DNA is proof enough that evolution is valid and we
are literally a "Monkey's Uncle". The only question
left is: "Did God cause that evolution?"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations.

Sorry, that's exactly what the scientific method allows
us to do.

1. Form an hypothesis
2. Compare it to reality
3. If it doesn't fit, fine tune the hypothesis
4. Then goto 1, Else it is true

The fact that we humans share 95% of a chimpanzee's
DNA is proof enough that evolution is valid and we
are literally a "Monkey's Uncle". The only question
left is: "Did God cause that evolution?"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

OK, so what other primate shows at least 90% Ok so what other organism
shares 95% of a human's or Chimpanzee's DNA. And now show that a chimpanzee
did not evolve from a human. So maybe you're a monkey's daddy. Maybe they
evolved from each other. Of maybe there are similarities that just worked
out and perhaps one didn't come from the other at all. Lots of speculation
here. Speak for yourself.


"Evolution
Further information: RNA world hypothesis

DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to
function, grow and reproduce. However, it is unclear how long in the
4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has
been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their
genetic material.[84][96] RNA may have acted as the central part of early
cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out
catalysis as part of ribozymes.[97] This ancient RNA world where nucleic
acid would have been used for both catalysis and genetics may have
influenced the evolution of the current genetic code based on four
nucleotide bases. This would occur since the number of unique bases in such
an organism is a trade-off between a small number of bases increasing
replication accuracy and a large number of bases increasing the catalytic
efficiency of ribozymes.[98]

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as
recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. This is because DNA will
survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly
degrades into short fragments in solution.[99] Claims for older DNA have
been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from
a salt crystal 250-million years old,[100] but these claims are
controversial.[101][102]" --from Wiki DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

No that was left to the pseudointellectuals.



Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

But those processes are complex in themselves and will fail if reduced
any further.


The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

But that doesnt prove the human eye evolved from one a bacteria had.
Even that sensory cell that the bacteria had would cease to function if
the components of that cell were not all present and functioning.



So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

But it had to. If there were something there that was strictly mineral
that somehow, some way, in some miraclulous way turned into a living
organism, then it still originated from minerals.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

He didnt say that atheism is a requirement. He said that atheists will
say that.




Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

This might interest you:
Eric -- Black fatigue-style pants, a white T-shirt inscribed with the
words Natural Selection on the front, black baseball cap with the letters
"KMFDM" on it (worn backwards), and a black trenchcoat (duster). Wore a
black fingerless glove on his right hand and black combat boots.


Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

Read "Hitlers Cross" by Lutzer to understand that Hitler was a
manipulator, especially of the Church. Also read the following:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not
forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by
their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will
of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out
devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity."

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

That quote is from the same One who gave the Sermon on the Mount. Hitler
was NOT a Christian.

There are many people today who profess to be Christains, yet most of
their beliefs are straight old testament.

Thats just the point. Not everyone that claims to be a Christian is a true
believer in Christ.




And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it.

If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that there is a lot
of evidence that goes against evolution.

It takes almost as much faith to not believe in evolution now as it does
to believe in a flat earth.

An ad hominem attack.

No, it isn't ad hominum.


Um, yes, it is.


Put another way, there is a lot of evidence that points to the theory of
evolution as fact.

There is lots of evidence that points out that it is impossible as well.

Things change. The related disciplines that verify the concept are likewise
wrong if Evo is.

That statement is not necessarily correct. Just because evolution theory
uses other diciplines to try to prove itself in no way makes evolution
correct nor does it render these other disciplines incorrect.

All it will take to prove evolution wrong is if say modern humans are found
in very early sediments along with the critters we've found there to date.

I know of one instance where this was documented.

But the evidence shows a forward movement of time, and never backwards.
Modern animals only appear in recent times. Ancient ones show a
terrmination.

Not all of them.

Those anomalies such as animals that haven't changed much, or
"rediscovered" animals once thought extinct are just wonderous additions to
life.



Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

Ok, what other mechanisms do you think there are? Aliens??

Ohh careful there. Creationists who use the weak form of Intelligent
design claim the possibility of aliens creating life here.

So do a number of evolutionists.


But the entire argument in that regard is specious anyhow. Evolution has
not one single thing to say about the ultimate beginning of life. It only
deals with what happens afterward.

It attempts to, but it doesnt do a good job. Im guessing evolutionists have
found all those transitionary life forms they say are out there?




But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

But you pretend that it is a blind faith, and that is also intellectually
dishonest. There are many reasons for that faith, and intelligent design
is a very good one.

Okay, you have no blind faith? Do a lot of investigating of the physics
and chemistry and paleontology. Come up with experiments and refute it.

You left out mathmatical probabilities, as well as the failures of
chemistry, palentology, and archeology.


Intelligent design has performed no science, no peer reviewed research,
with the exception of one report that was immediately refuted.

Actually peer-reviewed science by ID scientists is coming out more and more.
Google it.

"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher
Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that
design explains things that natural selection cannot. Proceedings is a
peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers
were all faculty members of respected universities and research
institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree
with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the
reasoning."

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm


Instead, the Intelligent design folks want to debate. Strangely enough,
that debate is envisioned as proving something. If evolution loses the
debate, is there no evolution. If it wins, is their no God?

For the former, no. For the latter, yes, because the premise of evolution is
that God is not necessary for the diversity of life on this planet.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get ID
insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists dont
want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.


Most distressing howevwer is the duality of the IDer's approach. the
switching between the weak ID that is brought out when trying to sneak
their belief into school science programs, (teach the controversy) and the
very same people saying that they want to replace the system as taught now
with science that is in alignment with the Christian faith.

I dont know of anyone that wants to replace it with Christian "science". On
the contrary, ID scientists welcome the side by side comparison of the
facts, and let the student do his own critical thinking and see which theory
is more plausable.


I don't think God needs or wants anyone lying for him.

No, but He put us here to put things into the light so they can be
scrutinized, not to descriminate as to what people can and cannot study.




But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis,

Ther are no two different accounts. Its one in the same account. The
Bible is not always cronological.

Don't know what to say here, Brian. Some times it's literal, some times
it's not, and sometimes we just pick and choose.

No, sometimes you have to read it for what it is, and quit reading things
into it, such as "two different accounts". Anyone that is truly
intellectually honest can see that it is the same account.



is just as wrong as the flat earth of four corners,

Ancient civilization knew the earth was spherical. The Egyptians
understood this.

The spherical earth concept started around 330 B.C. It was well known
during the middle ages. Oddly enough the resurgent Flat Earth, promoter,
Samuel Rowbotham, came up with his "Zoetitic Astronomy" system, in around
the mid 1800's which depended on his particular interpretation of the
Bible.

Lets mark the words "particular interpretation"

Interestingly enough, in the 1800's he engaged in public debates with
leading scientists. One doesn't prove the other, of course, but it's
interesting to see that the more things change, the more they remain the
same.

I really don't want to belabor the group with much more of this, we need
to get back to discussions of Art's antenna designs.

I love how people like to voice their opinion, then say, wait, we cant talk
about this anymore here.


All I would say is that I would suggest some personal research, and repeat
that evolution doesn't have a thing to do with origin, so just perhaps,
there are people out there who might want to manipulate others with a red
herring of an issue.

Evolution does speak to origin, in the sense that it contradicts the
Biblical account. Even evolutionists will espouse a theory of origin, what
ever they might believe. Again, the main hinge of evolution is the
transitionary forms of life, which are glaringly missing. Examine both
theories of origin, and see which theory fits the facts better. It wouldnt
be evolution. And if evolution is so air tight, I dont think they would
have a problem at all with allowing ID into the arena, especially since
evolution is so reproducable in the lab. Oh wait, it isnt! Hummm. I guess
its a theory still. Along with ID.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:
Evolution does speak to origin, in the sense that it contradicts the
Biblical account.

Sorry, but that is false. If each "day" during the
creation is about 1.5 billion years long, there
is no disagreement between The Bible and evolution
engineered by God.

Genesis 1:1; In the beginning, God created the
Big Bang.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Put another way, there is a lot of evidence that points to the theory
of evolution as fact.

Rhetorical question: What if evolution is just
one of the tools in God's toolbox?

Of no consequence. There is no reason that an ominesccnt deity couldn't
make things, then allow them to change in response to their surroundings.

Evolution makes no claims to origins.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:

This is getting to be a bit of tit for tat, JB, and I have no illusions
of getting you to support evolving life, and though I was once a
creationist of sorts when I was young, that ship has long sailed in my case.

If creation science is going to be science, it is going to have to
produce some science.

I'd love to see some peer reviewed cites of the creationist research,
but none seem to be forthcoming. If you have any, let me know, and I'll
read and discuss them wit ya.


So till then we'll just have to disagree.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
JB wrote:
The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations.

Sorry, that's exactly what the scientific method allows
us to do.

1. Form an hypothesis
2. Compare it to reality
3. If it doesn't fit, fine tune the hypothesis
4. Then goto 1, Else it is true

The fact that we humans share 95% of a chimpanzee's
DNA is proof enough that evolution is valid and we
are literally a "Monkey's Uncle". The only question
left is: "Did God cause that evolution?"


Strictly speaking, Cecil, if we were anything it would be a monkey's
great to the tenth power nephews, but that isn't even accurate.

There was a critter some long time ago that isn't around today, from
which monkeys, chimps and apes eventually evolved from.

Could a God cause that evolution? I could imagine the possibility, or at
least the conditions that set it into motion. But all that is outside
the realms of science.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

This is getting to be a bit of tit for tat, JB, and I have no illusions
of getting you to support evolving life, and though I was once a
creationist of sorts when I was young, that ship has long sailed in my
case.

Then you are in agreement with Carl Marx, who left seminary school after
reading Darwin's theory

If creation science is going to be science, it is going to have to
produce some science.

Creation Science is only scientific in it's view and interpretation of the
problems with macro evolution interpretation. It deals with review of
existing science that has been found lacking. It is not concerned
specifically with productivity nor in generating fraudulent science for the
purpose of satisfying grant requirements.

I'd love to see some peer reviewed cites of the creationist research,
but none seem to be forthcoming. If you have any, let me know, and I'll
read and discuss them wit ya.


So till then we'll just have to disagree.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your pre-conceived peers can't be trusted because of overt and hysterical
censorship by threats of character assassination and blacklisting. Evidence
that supports alternate conclusions exists outside of your search limits so
are dismissed with prejudice.

American interpretation
 

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:43:16 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Creation Science is only scientific in it's view and interpretation of the
problems with macro evolution interpretation. It deals with review of
existing science that has been found lacking. It is not concerned
specifically with productivity nor in generating fraudulent science for the
purpose of satisfying grant requirements.

Science is only religious in its view and interpretation of the
problems with claims of divine representatives. Science deals with
the review of existing religion that has been found lacking. Science
is not concerned specifically with Adam's DNA, nor in generating faith
based testimonials for the purpose of satisfying collections.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:43:16 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Creation Science is only scientific in it's view and interpretation of
the
problems with macro evolution interpretation. It deals with review of
existing science that has been found lacking. It is not concerned
specifically with productivity nor in generating fraudulent science for
the
purpose of satisfying grant requirements.

Science is only religious in its view and interpretation of the
problems with claims of divine representatives. Science deals with
the review of existing religion that has been found lacking. Science
is not concerned specifically with Adam's DNA, nor in generating faith
based testimonials for the purpose of satisfying collections.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Wherever men see themselves as the authority, there is potential for
corruption in any institution. My beef is not specifically with science,
but with the arrogant who seek to re-engineer everything in the world to
their own ideal, including American society and world climate, heedless of
the damage. Is Christianity such a threat that hysterical administrators
should throw people out of school for praying, or to utter the name of
Jesus?

Oh to have the insight of Joseph or Daniel.

Let us take "Global Warming" for an example. The environmental storm
troopers are all set to institute great changes and restrictions on the way
we do business in an attempt to "correct" climate change. This might be a
good thing if it can be done without harming the economy. Why? If you will
notice, the major environmental damage around the world exists in
impoverished nations where the population lives for the day at the expense
of the future. It is a good thing to be wary for the environment if you can
afford the luxury of it. Climate change might be a good thing if we were
completely aware of all of the causes and results of it. But all
indications are, if the human race can't even reduce wasteful and hazardous
use of resources, any idea of intervention beyond that could only risk
overcorrecting since anything that can actually be set into motion seems to
have to progress to near disaster before we change course.

The Bible is a great study of the folly of man, and the only Hope for
salvation.

American interpretation
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
Evolution does speak to origin, in the sense that it contradicts the
Biblical account.

Sorry, but that is false. If each "day" during the
creation is about 1.5 billion years long, there
is no disagreement between The Bible and evolution
engineered by God.

Genesis 1:1; In the beginning, God created the
Big Bang.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in the
OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would we want
to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is pretty clear.
B

American interpretation
 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:56:14 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Wherever men see themselves as the authority, there is potential for
corruption in any institution. My beef is not specifically with science,
but with the arrogant who seek to re-engineer everything in the world to
their own ideal, including American society and world climate, heedless of
the damage. Is Christianity such a threat that hysterical administrators
should throw people out of school for praying, or to utter the name of
Jesus?

My beef is not specifically with religion, but with the arrogant who
seek to re-faith everything in the world to their own dogma. I won't
expand on "including" American society and world climate because that
is already explicit in "everything in the world" unless, of course,
there is some divine perspective that combines American society and
the world climate that is unshared with "everything in the world." Is
science such a threat that hysterical pulpit pounders should
excommunicate people for embracing an irrational Pi, or because
Einstein was a Jew just as much as Jesus was?

Oh to have the insight of Joseph or Daniel.

Or any number of others....

Let us take "Global Warming" for an example. The environmental storm
troopers

Less than subtle holocaust framing.

are all set to institute great changes and restrictions on the way
we do business in an attempt to "correct" climate change. This might be a
good thing

In light of the frame built around this picture, I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."

if it can be done without harming the economy.

The only indestructible economy ran behind the iron curtain for 70
years. In the same span of time the western economy suffered many
plunges that wrecked it and the Commies smiled in their infinite
wisdom. So much for shedding tears over harming an economy.

Why? If you will
notice, the major environmental damage around the world exists in
impoverished nations where the population lives for the day at the expense
of the future.

The glorification of consumption and celebration of decadence in the
enriched nations has easily eclipsed their plight.

It is a good thing to be wary for the environment if you can
afford the luxury of it.

Doing nothing is vastly more expensive. The luxury card is
narcissistic.

Climate change might be a good thing if we were
completely aware of all of the causes and results of it.

Another limp sincerity in that "might be."

But all
indications are, if the human race can't even reduce wasteful and hazardous
use of resources, any idea of intervention beyond that could only risk
overcorrecting since anything that can actually be set into motion seems to
have to progress to near disaster before we change course.

The Bible is a great study of the folly of man, and the only Hope for
salvation.

If the Qur'an has no hope then the gospels have been discarded in that
statement. The Torah, likewise. The Bhagavad Gita possibly
end-arounds these dismissals - but easily speaks to the issues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.

How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

Brian Oakley wrote:

AS I wrote JB This is becoming tit for tat, and we're not likely to
accomplish much here, so I'll address one thing, and let you have the
last word, then I bow out. Unless you want to talk the research, there
isn't much point.


"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief,
is that design explains things that natural selection cannot.
Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the
then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected
universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that,
while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found
nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm

I'm not sure who the peers are who did the review, but the main thrust
of the paper is that the Cambrian period, in which differing life forms
proliferated, did not have much in the way of transitional fossils
before it happened. The life forms were too complex.

An explosion of new life forms after the Cryogenian is not terribly
surprising, given that the earth was largely in a deep freeze during the
Cryogenian.

The Ediacarian, which happened before the Cambrian, was in fact the time
when many of the basic body plans that exist today came about. It
recieved a bit of short shrift in the paper.

But what is interesting is the conclusion. There are some questions and
interesting things about the Cambrian. We don't know everything for
sure. He concludes the answer is that it must be designed. I look at it
and say thanks for the idea for new research projects.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get
ID insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists
dont want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.

No conspiracy needed. Let's take another and similar issue, that of Cold
Fusion. When FLeischmann and Pons announced their discovery, a lot of
researchers flocked to reproduce thier results. They couldn't, and cold
fusion (at least at that time, was relegated to the back pages. The
internet is a haven for people who say that researchers were stymied or
discriminated against if they showed any evidence suggesting cold fusion
was real. And yet research goes on, if quietly. If someone comes up with
cold fusion, they will be a part of history.

IF I were a biologist, and IF I thought there was any chance that
Evolution wasn't real, you can bet your life I would be doing research
to find out the truth. The person who discovers that will completely
Rcck the entire scientific world to it's very core. And there are plenty
of people out there would be willing to do the research.

But the problem is that basic research that disproves evolution is just
not there. And looking at a lot of different papers and drawing a
conclusion is only step one. Now that your author has made his
conclusion - actually a hypothesis - synthesized from a number of other
papers, he has to act on it.

The main conclusion is that the complexity of Cambrian life forms is
beyond what is possible without purposful design. I would disagree,
given what happened in the ediacaran age, but disagreement is how
science moves forward.

Now they have to prove that

1. There are no transitional fossils

2. Come up with an adequate explanation of the lack of modern species in
the fossil record.

3. A "killer" would be to find anatomically identical animals along with
extinct of the same species in some provable ancient strata.


Now there is a danger in field research of item number one. Over the
years, the number of transitional fossils has grown quite a bit. The
Ediacaran and early Cambrian is a buzzing field at present, and there
may be more transitional animals to be found.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

AS I wrote JB This is becoming tit for tat, and we're not likely to
accomplish much here, so I'll address one thing, and let you have the
last word, then I bow out. Unless you want to talk the research, there
isn't much point.


"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief,
is that design explains things that natural selection cannot.
Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the
then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected
universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that,
while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found
nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm

I'm not sure who the peers are who did the review, but the main thrust
of the paper is that the Cambrian period, in which differing life forms
proliferated, did not have much in the way of transitional fossils
before it happened. The life forms were too complex.

An explosion of new life forms after the Cryogenian is not terribly
surprising, given that the earth was largely in a deep freeze during the
Cryogenian.

The Ediacarian, which happened before the Cambrian, was in fact the time
when many of the basic body plans that exist today came about. It
recieved a bit of short shrift in the paper.

But what is interesting is the conclusion. There are some questions and
interesting things about the Cambrian. We don't know everything for
sure. He concludes the answer is that it must be designed. I look at it
and say thanks for the idea for new research projects.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get
ID insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good
research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists
dont want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.

No conspiracy needed. Let's take another and similar issue, that of Cold
Fusion. When FLeischmann and Pons announced their discovery, a lot of
researchers flocked to reproduce thier results. They couldn't, and cold
fusion (at least at that time, was relegated to the back pages. The
internet is a haven for people who say that researchers were stymied or
discriminated against if they showed any evidence suggesting cold fusion
was real. And yet research goes on, if quietly. If someone comes up with
cold fusion, they will be a part of history.

IF I were a biologist, and IF I thought there was any chance that
Evolution wasn't real, you can bet your life I would be doing research
to find out the truth. The person who discovers that will completely
Rcck the entire scientific world to it's very core. And there are plenty
of people out there would be willing to do the research.

But the problem is that basic research that disproves evolution is just
not there. And looking at a lot of different papers and drawing a
conclusion is only step one. Now that your author has made his
conclusion - actually a hypothesis - synthesized from a number of other
papers, he has to act on it.

The main conclusion is that the complexity of Cambrian life forms is
beyond what is possible without purposful design. I would disagree,
given what happened in the ediacaran age, but disagreement is how
science moves forward.

Now they have to prove that

1. There are no transitional fossils

2. Come up with an adequate explanation of the lack of modern species in
the fossil record.

3. A "killer" would be to find anatomically identical animals along with
extinct of the same species in some provable ancient strata.


Now there is a danger in field research of item number one. Over the
years, the number of transitional fossils has grown quite a bit. The
Ediacaran and early Cambrian is a buzzing field at present, and there
may be more transitional animals to be found.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Of course if the research is repeatable, we should have rebuilt the dinos
because we would be able to create life, recreate life, and transition it as
well. We have lots of conclusion upon conclusion upon conclusion. As with
many theoretical belief systems, we construct intricate theories upon
preconceived notions.

We don't know what gravity is but we take note of it's existence. So we
construct intricate theories, but don't really know if some breakthrough
will suddenly make it all clear.

We have evidence of miracles, although they are often not repeatable nor
observable to a peer group. We have C14 dating that is corroborated by
Geological Strata theory, but Geological Strata theory is not reliable
because we assume that the Earth has been re-arranged significantly in ways
we can't always explain.

I prefer to leave some things unresolved and let others devote their lives
to their pursuits, but I take issue with God hating mad scientists seeking
to rule the world, or enabling evil. There are those who have decided that
there is no right or wrong, heaven or hell, no evil or morality and that it
would be just as well if a whole lot of other people could just be food or
step off the planet to leave more for the animals.

I leave it in God's hands though. He does what he wants.

American interpretation
 

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.


If the Soviet economy was indestructible then it's only because people
weren't. You have made my point about mad scientists, and now philosophers
and other intellectuals too, considering the world holocaust that way
overshadows the Nazi atrocities. It is interesting that it is always so
fashionable to beat Hitler, the Monster, over and over while Stalin, Uncle
Joe, and many others of his kind keeps getting a free pass.

What makes you think you wouldn't be so easily expendable as well. There
would be no need for those who demoralize and destabilize after the crisis
unless to maintain the crisis away from home. KGB made that policy. Notice
that the "Labor Union" was the Government, Employer, Management and owned
all the money, food, housing too. Call it State Capitalism or Imperialism.

If the US and the Whole World economies and environment are destroyed, it
will be because of everyone trying to get something for nothing. Not a good
thing for anyone to get something for nothing, nor to be envious.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:56:14 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Wherever men see themselves as the authority, there is potential for
corruption in any institution. My beef is not specifically with science,
but with the arrogant who seek to re-engineer everything in the world to
their own ideal, including American society and world climate, heedless
of
the damage. Is Christianity such a threat that hysterical administrators
should throw people out of school for praying, or to utter the name of
Jesus?

My beef is not specifically with religion, but with the arrogant who
seek to re-faith everything in the world to their own dogma. I won't
expand on "including" American society and world climate because that
is already explicit in "everything in the world" unless, of course,
there is some divine perspective that combines American society and
the world climate that is unshared with "everything in the world." Is
science such a threat that hysterical pulpit pounders should
excommunicate people for embracing an irrational Pi, or because
Einstein was a Jew just as much as Jesus was?

Oh to have the insight of Joseph or Daniel.

Or any number of others....

Let us take "Global Warming" for an example. The environmental storm
troopers

Less than subtle holocaust framing.

are all set to institute great changes and restrictions on the way
we do business in an attempt to "correct" climate change. This might be
a
good thing

In light of the frame built around this picture, I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."

if it can be done without harming the economy.

The only indestructible economy ran behind the iron curtain for 70
years. In the same span of time the western economy suffered many
plunges that wrecked it and the Commies smiled in their infinite
wisdom. So much for shedding tears over harming an economy.

Why? If you will
notice, the major environmental damage around the world exists in
impoverished nations where the population lives for the day at the
expense
of the future.

The glorification of consumption and celebration of decadence in the
enriched nations has easily eclipsed their plight.

It is a good thing to be wary for the environment if you can
afford the luxury of it.

Doing nothing is vastly more expensive. The luxury card is
narcissistic.

Climate change might be a good thing if we were
completely aware of all of the causes and results of it.

Another limp sincerity in that "might be."

But all
indications are, if the human race can't even reduce wasteful and
hazardous
use of resources, any idea of intervention beyond that could only risk
overcorrecting since anything that can actually be set into motion seems
to
have to progress to near disaster before we change course.

The Bible is a great study of the folly of man, and the only Hope for
salvation.

If the Qur'an has no hope then the gospels have been discarded in that
statement. The Torah, likewise. The Bhagavad Gita possibly
end-arounds these dismissals - but easily speaks to the issues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.


Just when it was getting good! We were close to hearing how the Somalian
pirates believe in evolution, and I was hoping to get a Jeffrey
Dahmer/evolution connection.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.

How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

American interpretation
 

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

Well, consistent with that, records seem to indicate there was a big
flash of it at one point. And if that was Him, then He is also
responsible for all the stars and planets which subsequently coalesced.
At which point there began an enormous and complex organic chemistry
project which, given the amount of time He's allowed it to work, has now
provided almost an infinite variety of results, including the inhabiting
of at least (and perhaps only) one of the planets with intelligent life.

There are of course a variety of simplified, abridged, and age (or
epoch) appropriate versions of this history, the actual scale of which
is only slowing revealing itself to us. So it's apparent that if a
creator created all of what is, then He is responsible for a far more
intelligent design than the history books give Him the credit for; far
too intelligent perhaps for us to comprehend. Or maybe He is the simple
minded guy with anger management issues they wrote about hundreds of
years prior to sanitation. I don't claim to know.

ac6xg

American interpretation
 

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

That may be, but a 24 hour day, i.e. sunrise to
sunrise, was impossible without the sun which was
created on the 4th day.

Actually, The Bible says that 1000 years in the
life of man is like one day to God. So why can't
2 billion years just as easily be like one day to
God?

The sun was indeed created about 8 billion years
after the Big Bang. 8 billion years divided by
"4 days" is indeed 2 billion years.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

American interpretation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Gordon wrote:
....

Well, consistent with that, records seem to indicate there was a big
flash of it at one point. And if that was Him, then He is also
responsible for all the stars and planets which subsequently coalesced.
At which point there began an enormous and complex organic chemistry
project which, given the amount of time He's allowed it to work, has now
provided almost an infinite variety of results, including the inhabiting
of at least (and perhaps only) one of the planets with intelligent life.
....

ac6xg

Which planet was that?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH