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