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 -

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

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 -

"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 -

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

"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

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

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.

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

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