Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 8, 4:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178510378.669243.168...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 7, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life > > > evolved from non-life. It must be because of faith because there is no > > > evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life > > > can evolve from non-life. > > > A virus is alive. Bacteria is alive. Animals are alive. Who, > > besides creationists, says life evolved from non-life? Don't forget > > that the Bible says that man was created from dust. No scientist > > believes that crap. > > > > I believe that God created the earth and created > > > Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants. > > > That is a matter of faith. It must be because of faith because there > > is no evidence that your god ever existed. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We have fossil evidence > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry but you're lying. No physical evidence can prove the existance of a supernatural being. If you find something in nature then it came to be naturally and not through the intervention of a mythological creature. Martin > > > God even made sure that the > > > Earth was the exact distance from the sun so that people, plants and > > > animals could live their lives. > > > Please. There are billions of galaxies each with billions of stars > > and no doubt several planets per star. Why would your god only create > > life on Earth. We know that most planets in the universe are > > incapable of supporting life. > > > > We have found no evidence of life on other > > > planets or even on the moon. You asked for evidence that fossils provide > > > proof that God created life on this planet. I don't need to provide that > > > proof. > > > Yes, you do. > > > > At the ICR website, there is at least one book for sale that has > > > that evidence. I read the book about 15 years ago but no longer have a > > > copy of it. If you type "fossils" into the ICR search engine, you could > > > find articles about fossil evidence. Don't expect me to repeat in a post > > > everything that is written in that book that I mentioned. > > > If you type "fossils" into any search engine you would find evidence > > supporting evolution. I would encourage anyone to do this and see > > that you are a liar. Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 "Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message news:1178569530.394326.237150@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 10:30 am, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 May 2007 01:22:10 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" > > > > > > > > > > > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message > > >news:cplr33tcm7jmh65ssac5rohh1ijo6bich6@4ax.com... > > >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:14:43 -0400, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque" > > >> ><HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >> >>I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational > > >> >>discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow > > >> >>of evolution. > > > > >> Why lie about reality being a sacred cow? > > > > >There is only a few things that raises the ire of people as > > >much as a criticism or an attack upon their religion. One of these > > >thing is evolution. It raises the same ire and antaganism among > > >the faithful to the same degree as any religion. > > > > Evolution isn't a religion, Haskell. It's an observed, documented > > fact. Evolution happens, and all the denial creationists can muster > > won't change that. > > > > > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. > Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? > No one believes chimps turned into human beings. Humans and chimps share a common ancestory, but branched off their common stock millions of years ago. <snip> Haskell Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 On May 8, 4:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. The fact is that thousands of years ago the Christian god was just a god amongst many. (See http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html or http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Sumerian.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sumerian_gods or http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/sumgods.html or http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.3.1 or look up the word "Elohim" on wikipedia.) Thousands of years ago, God was known as "An" or the "Sky God" of Sumerian mythology. We know this because the Bible claims Abraham came from Ur which was located in Sumer. (See http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ ) According to http://www.stevesdinner.plus.com/swd17.htm , "Orthodox tradition represents Abraham as a member of a Semitic tribe from Ur. He probably spoke Akkadian, and the Akkadian counterparts of the Sumerian gods Enki, An, Enlil, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna would have been known to Abraham as Ea, Anu, Bel, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar. Abraham's tribe left Ur and travelled to Harran in southeastern Turkey." There's also the similarity between Sumerian mythology and the Bible: in Sumerian mythology, the first man was named Adapa! Later the world was destroyed by An in a great flood from which there was only one survivor who survived by building a boat that carried him, his family and all their animals! These similarities are pointed out on http://www.historel.net/english/orient/03mesop.htm which is a theist site that doesn't seem to mind admitting the similarity between the Bible and other mythology! Yet it still refers to "God" as if he actually existed! The Bible also makes reference to the ancient Hebrew goddess Astarte and refers to her as the "Queen of Heaven": "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." - Jeremiah 7:18 "But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?" - Jeremiah 44:17-19 "We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows." - Jeremiah 44:25 The name Astarte is easily associated with that of the Sumerian goddess Ishtar who was also known as the "Queen of Heaven". (See http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/origsin.htm http://www.cmy.on.ca/newletters/aug2004.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar and http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ishtar.html ) Besides mentioning that Abraham came from Ur in Sumer, the Bible also mentions the city of Babylon and the "Tower of Babel" that was supposedly built there. The Babylonians were hated by the Hebrews and to this day "to babble" means to speak nonsense. The Garden of Eden was also located in Sumer according to Genesis 2:10-14: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates." The Euphrates river ran through Sumer, which is now Iraq. It is worth noting that http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ is actually a theist site! They refer to Anu as " the one God" but claim that "Ea" and "Bel" were just other names for the same god. This contradicts the fact that Anu, Ea and Bel were worshipped separately in Sumer as three distinct Gods. (Anu was the god of the sky, Bel was the god of wind and Ea was the god of water. Sumerian mythology claimed that humans were created by Ea.) According to http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html "Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two serpents ... entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus symbol used by modern Western medicine." As Ea was the god of knowledge, was the guardian of the "Tree of Life" in Sumerian mythology and he was symbolized by a snake, it stands to reason that the snake in the myth of the garden of Eden represented Ea. Bel was similarly hated by Hebrews: according to the old testament, God told the Hebrews to kill worshippers of "Baal" if they didn't obey his first commandment to "not have other gods before Him". What is interesting is that theists today are willing to accept that their god was the god An of Sumer but they don't see why this should be a challenge to faith. ( http://www.christianblog.com/blog/thomas/abram-was-from-sumer-after-all/ ) An was the most powerful god in Sumerian mythology and hence it is understandable that Abraham would choose him as the "one true god" and dismiss all the others but then the question would be if Anu (God) exists then what about all the other gods. So God is just a myth created by man to explain the world around him and give him comfort. If that's not good enough for you, consider the fact that God had been used in the past to explain everything from storms to floods to earthquakes to volcanic eruptions but that we now have scientific explanations for all of these calamities and thus don't need to use any gods (let alone God) to explain them. The fact is that scientists can perform measurements today that agree with the predictions of quantum theory to ten digit precision and accuracy. The so called "God of the gaps" has become so infinitessimally small that we can feel confident that it doesn't exist at all. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 7, 2007 Posted May 7, 2007 In article <fs8v33tspo0nsvrlp95u2dia01ri66leuc@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:00:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-0705071500020001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <701v33lbp8qtdtvjrqf2vsu7i23uoa9jtn@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:45:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) in > >> <Jason-0705071345180001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:12:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > >> >> (Jason) in > >> >> <Jason-0605072212020001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Please learn to quote properly. You method is incoherent and > >> >> potentially misleading and dishonest. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common > >> >> >> descent? > >> >> > > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> >> > > >> >> >No, they don't accept common descent. > >> >> > >> >> Then creationists don't accept the parts of evolution that can be > >> >> "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists > >> >> in science. > >> >> > >> >> > I meant that God created Adam, Eve, > >> >> >lots of plants and lots of animals. > >> >> > >> >> Lots but not all? > >> > > >> >God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. > >> >The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those > >> >plants and animals that God created during that first week. > >> > > >> > > >> >> >They believe those creatures on that > >> >> >famous chart that starts with a creature that looks like a monkey and ends > >> >> >with a modern man are NOT the way it happened. > >> >> > >> >> So creationists actually reject evolution. The claim that they accept > >> >> some of it is a dishonest bit of propaganda. What is your reason and > >> >> evidence for rejecting common descent? > > > >There are some aspects of evolution that have been proven in labortories > >and in experiments. This is especially true in relation to experiments > >with bacteria. Those are the aspects of evolution that we have no problems > >with. > > That is to say, if it is astoundingly well supported that you would > look like an idiot to deny it you will not deny it at the moment. > >> > > >> >The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. > >> > >> The Bible is not scientific evidence. Nor does it say how. Nor when. > >> And if you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old you have many more > >> issues. > > > >ICR makes use of the 6000 year figure. I doubt that anyone knows the exact > >date that God created the earth and all life forms. > > How about within a factor of 2? Of 10? I don't know the exact year that God created all life forms. It may have been several million years ago or even several billion years ago. > > >I don't know the date > >or even the century. I accept the so called gap theory which simply means > >the earth may be several million years old. > > > The Earth is 4.5 b illion years old. "Gap theory" is hand waving. > > >> > >> >Common descent > >> >teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. > >> > >> Common Descent is the very well supported claim that all life on Earth > >> descends from a common set of ancestors. And H. sapiens is still a > >> "monkey type" creature. Take a look at some chimps some day, they are > >> astoundingly similar to humans. > > > >Of course--the reason is because God made chimps and humans. > > And if they are different it is because God did that. "Because God did > it" is a useless explanation because it applies to absolutely > everything we could possibly see. No matter what, you can always say > "Because God did it". > > > He used some > >of th same types of genetic materials to make chimps and humans. > > Maybe he did it over millions of years using evolution. And you keep > ignoring the other 99.9999% of life on Earth. > > >Even many > >lower animals > > What are "lower" animals? I was referring to most mammals. I sometimes write or say animals when I should say mammals > > >have organs that are similar to organs in chimps and humans. > > Yep. There is that common descent thing. If you tell me an organism > has mammaries I know it has hair and a jaw and calcified bones. There > is a pattern to the similarity, one that screams common descent. > > >I read an article > > Years ago, of course, and you don't remember from where or what it > actually said. I am tired of all these "articles" you once read. How > about you find some research from the last 10 years. Find me any > creationist research from the last 10 years, any at all. > > >indicating that they are hoping to inject human genetic > >material into pigs with hopes of making use of hearts from those pigs in > >people. I hope those experiments are successful. > > > >> > >> >Evolutionists > >> >refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. > >> > >> What "it"? > >> > >> >However, none > >> >of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. > >> > >> There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have > >> evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and > >> chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are > >> we missing that we would expect to find? The bones of the so called common ancestor of man and chimps > > > >I have no problem with the common descent related to various types of > >plants and animals. The problem that I have is relation to human descent. > > So all the other life on Earth evolved, including chimps and gorillas. > But somehow not humans. Is the Earth billions of years old for the > rest of life, but only a few thousand for humans? > > >A represents the common descent of mammals > > I hope you mean animals. > > >B represents the common descent of plants > >C represents the common descent of humans > >Just because A and B is true, it does not mean that C is true. > > A and B cover all of the life on Earth. Humans are more similar to > chimps than we are to anything else on Earth. Humans and chimps are > more similar to other apes than we are to anything on Earth. Apes are > more similar to other mammals than we are to anything else on Earth. > Mammals are more similar to other vertebrates than we are to anything > else on Earth. Humans are not an odd outlier, we are deeply embedded > in the tree. There is no evidence that suggest otherwise. > > [snip] > > >> ROTFLMAO. I see, so "big" means "Neanderthal" which means "diseased". > >> I guess if you close your eyes everything looks the same. > > > >There are pictures in various books related to what Neanderthals looked > >like. I have seen people that looked like those pictures. > > > I believe the > >wrestlers name may have been "Andree the Giant". You may want to google > >that term and find a picture of that wrestler. > > I am quite familiar with Andre and he did not look like a Neanderthal > and certainly did not look like he had rickets. If Andre was hired to play the role of a Neanderthal in a movie--a make up artist could easily make Andre look identical to a picture of a Neanderthal. I guess that this is another case of perception. I could look at Andre and see a man that looks like a Neanderthal. On the other hand, you could look at Andre and see a man that does NOT look like a Neanderthal. In regard to rickets--I seem to recall that I stated "rickets or some other type of bone disease or genetic problem". > > [snip] Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:50:00 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0705071650000001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <fs8v33tspo0nsvrlp95u2dia01ri66leuc@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:00:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-0705071500020001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <701v33lbp8qtdtvjrqf2vsu7i23uoa9jtn@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:45:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) in >> >> <Jason-0705071345180001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <vagu331l79kfjgf11c2p6nndmj9sh3ilfk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:12:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> <Jason-0605072212020001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Please learn to quote properly. You method is incoherent and >> >> >> potentially misleading and dishonest. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common >> >> >> >> descent? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> > >> >> >> >No, they don't accept common descent. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then creationists don't accept the parts of evolution that can be >> >> >> "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists >> >> >> in science. >> >> >> >> >> >> > I meant that God created Adam, Eve, >> >> >> >lots of plants and lots of animals. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lots but not all? >> >> > >> >> >God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. >> >> >The plants and animals that are in the world today evolved from those >> >> >plants and animals that God created during that first week. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >They believe those creatures on that >> >> >> >famous chart that starts with a creature that looks like a monkey >and ends >> >> >> >with a modern man are NOT the way it happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> So creationists actually reject evolution. The claim that they accept >> >> >> some of it is a dishonest bit of propaganda. What is your reason and >> >> >> evidence for rejecting common descent? >> > >> >There are some aspects of evolution that have been proven in labortories >> >and in experiments. This is especially true in relation to experiments >> >with bacteria. Those are the aspects of evolution that we have no problems >> >with. >> >> That is to say, if it is astoundingly well supported that you would >> look like an idiot to deny it you will not deny it at the moment. >> >> > >> >> >The Bible clearly states that God created modern man. >> >> >> >> The Bible is not scientific evidence. Nor does it say how. Nor when. >> >> And if you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old you have many more >> >> issues. >> > >> >ICR makes use of the 6000 year figure. I doubt that anyone knows the exact >> >date that God created the earth and all life forms. >> >> How about within a factor of 2? Of 10? > >I don't know the exact year that God created all life forms. It may have >been several million years ago or even several billion years ago. So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not exactly impressive. >> >> >I don't know the date >> >or even the century. I accept the so called gap theory which simply means >> >the earth may be several million years old. >> > >> The Earth is 4.5 b illion years old. "Gap theory" is hand waving. >> >> >> >> >> >Common descent >> >> >teaches that modern man evolved from a monkey type creature. >> >> >> >> Common Descent is the very well supported claim that all life on Earth >> >> descends from a common set of ancestors. And H. sapiens is still a >> >> "monkey type" creature. Take a look at some chimps some day, they are >> >> astoundingly similar to humans. >> > >> >Of course--the reason is because God made chimps and humans. >> >> And if they are different it is because God did that. "Because God did >> it" is a useless explanation because it applies to absolutely >> everything we could possibly see. No matter what, you can always say >> "Because God did it". >> >> > He used some >> >of th same types of genetic materials to make chimps and humans. >> >> Maybe he did it over millions of years using evolution. And you keep >> ignoring the other 99.9999% of life on Earth. >> >> >Even many >> >lower animals >> >> What are "lower" animals? > >I was referring to most mammals. I sometimes write or say animals when I >should say mammals Why only mammals and still what are "lower"? >> >> >have organs that are similar to organs in chimps and humans. >> >> Yep. There is that common descent thing. If you tell me an organism >> has mammaries I know it has hair and a jaw and calcified bones. There >> is a pattern to the similarity, one that screams common descent. >> >> >I read an article >> >> Years ago, of course, and you don't remember from where or what it >> actually said. I am tired of all these "articles" you once read. How >> about you find some research from the last 10 years. Find me any >> creationist research from the last 10 years, any at all. >> >> >indicating that they are hoping to inject human genetic >> >material into pigs with hopes of making use of hearts from those pigs in >> >people. I hope those experiments are successful. >> > >> >> >> >> >Evolutionists >> >> >refer to it as the "common ancestor" of monkeys and people. >> >> >> >> What "it"? >> >> >> >> >However, none >> >> >of the bones of that common ancestor have ever been found. >> >> >> >> There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have >> >> evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and >> >> chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are >> >> we missing that we would expect to find? > >The bones of the so called common ancestor of man and chimps And why would we expect to find that? Fossilization is rare, even more rare for land animals, even more rare for savannah animals. Have you looked at the fossils that we do have? >> > >> >I have no problem with the common descent related to various types of >> >plants and animals. The problem that I have is relation to human descent. >> >> So all the other life on Earth evolved, including chimps and gorillas. >> But somehow not humans. Is the Earth billions of years old for the >> rest of life, but only a few thousand for humans? >> >> >A represents the common descent of mammals >> >> I hope you mean animals. >> >> >B represents the common descent of plants >> >C represents the common descent of humans >> >Just because A and B is true, it does not mean that C is true. >> >> A and B cover all of the life on Earth. Humans are more similar to >> chimps than we are to anything else on Earth. Humans and chimps are >> more similar to other apes than we are to anything on Earth. Apes are >> more similar to other mammals than we are to anything else on Earth. >> Mammals are more similar to other vertebrates than we are to anything >> else on Earth. Humans are not an odd outlier, we are deeply embedded >> in the tree. There is no evidence that suggest otherwise. Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away. >> [snip] >> >> >> ROTFLMAO. I see, so "big" means "Neanderthal" which means "diseased". >> >> I guess if you close your eyes everything looks the same. >> > >> >There are pictures in various books related to what Neanderthals looked >> >like. I have seen people that looked like those pictures. >> >> > I believe the >> >wrestlers name may have been "Andree the Giant". You may want to google >> >that term and find a picture of that wrestler. >> >> I am quite familiar with Andre and he did not look like a Neanderthal >> and certainly did not look like he had rickets. > >If Andre was hired to play the role of a Neanderthal in a movie--a make up >artist could easily make Andre look identical to a picture of a >Neanderthal. Which means nothing even if it were true. And it is not, Andre had a known problem which did not make his bones look like a Neanderthal's bones. > I guess that this is another case of perception. I could look >at Andre and see a man that looks like a Neanderthal. On the other hand, >you could look at Andre and see a man that does NOT look like a >Neanderthal. Have you actually looked at Neanderthal bones? Do you see yourself as an expert comparing bones? Because there are people who do that professionally and they can easily distinguish Neanderthal bones from modern human. >In regard to rickets--I seem to recall that I stated "rickets >or some other type of bone disease or genetic problem". And they were wrong . It was a desperate desire to make the evidence go away. An actual doctor can diagnose rickets from looking at the bones, they can diagnose lots of bone diseases that way. And the people who are experts in this do not think that Neanderthal bones look like diseased human bones. (Amazingly enough we have Neanderthal remains from very young to old, funny that they all have the same disease.) >> [snip] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On May 8, 12:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There are some genetic problems that run in families and in races of > people. For example, Sickle Cell anema predominatly affects people of > African descent. Perhaps the Neanderthals were a race of humans that had > unique features. You probably have read about African pygmies--they are > under 5 feet tall. Do you believe that if I had some bones from an African > pygmy child and I took those bones to a scientist or doctor that he would > be able to tell me that those bones were from an African pygmy child or > just that they were the bones from an African child. Do you see my point? Actually, no I don't. Evolution is about diversification: the very fact that there are different races of man and different breeds of dog point to evolution in action (although in the case of dog breeds it is more a question of artificial selection than natural selection). That neanderthals appear to be a race of humans that just naturally disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution! (Note that different breed of dogs might as well be different species as it would be impossible for a poodle to mate with a great dane!) Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 snip > So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not exactly > impressive. You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling you how many years ago that God created all life forms. When I get to heaven, I will ask one of the angels all of my questions. You indated that the earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old. I checked a reference book and it states "The earth was formed at the same time as the sun, about 4.6 billion years ago". Source: The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" Which date is most accurate? It appears that even evolutionists can not agree on the date that the earth and sun were formed. That's not impressive. snip > >> The Earth is 4.5 b illion years old. "Gap theory" is hand waving. snip > >> What are "lower" animals? > > > >I was referring to most mammals. I sometimes write or say animals when I > >should say mammals > > Why only mammals and still what are "lower"? good point--I consider all life forms to be lower than humans. Humans are at the top of the food chain. snip > >> >> There are millions of species around today, not just humans. We have > >> >> evidence for the common descent of all life, not simply of humans and > >> >> chimps. We have lots of bones of ancestors of humans. What exactly are > >> >> we missing that we would expect to find? > > > >The bones of the so called common ancestor of man and chimps > > And why would we expect to find that? Fossilization is rare, even more > rare for land animals, even more rare for savannah animals. Have you > looked at the fossils that we do have? I have seen fossils in museums. I have read a book related to fossils. The title was "Evolution: The Fossils Say No" snip > >If Andre was hired to play the role of a Neanderthal in a movie--a make up > >artist could easily make Andre look identical to a picture of a > >Neanderthal. > > Which means nothing even if it were true. And it is not, Andre had a > known problem which did not make his bones look like a Neanderthal's > bones. > > > I guess that this is another case of perception. I could look > >at Andre and see a man that looks like a Neanderthal. On the other hand, > >you could look at Andre and see a man that does NOT look like a > >Neanderthal. > > Have you actually looked at Neanderthal bones? Do you see yourself as > an expert comparing bones? Because there are people who do that > professionally and they can easily distinguish Neanderthal bones from > modern human. No, I am NOT and expert related to comparing bones. I know a lot about Neanderthals because I wrote a college report on Neanderthals. I have never seen any Neanderthal bones unless they were in that museum that I once visited. I have seen several artistic drawings of what a Neanderthal probably looked like. > >In regard to rickets--I seem to recall that I stated "rickets > >or some other type of bone disease or genetic problem". > > And they were wrong . It was a desperate desire to make the evidence > go away. An actual doctor can diagnose rickets from looking at the > bones, they can diagnose lots of bone diseases that way. And the > people who are experts in this do not think that Neanderthal bones > look like diseased human bones. (Amazingly enough we have Neanderthal > remains from very young to old, funny that they all have the same > disease.) There are some genetic problems that run in families and in races of people. For example, Sickle Cell anema predominatly affects people of African descent. Perhaps the Neanderthals were a race of humans that had unique features. You probably have read about African pygmies--they are under 5 feet tall. Do you believe that if I had some bones from an African pygmy child and I took those bones to a scientist or doctor that he would be able to tell me that those bones were from an African pygmy child or just that they were the bones from an African child. Do you see my point? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 In article <1178581275.428133.95450@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 4:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > God created all of the plants and animals that were in the Garden of Eden. > > The fact is that thousands of years ago the Christian > god was just a god amongst many. (See http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html > or http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Sumerian.html or > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sumerian_gods or > http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/sumgods.html or > http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.3.1 or > look up the word "Elohim" on wikipedia.) Thousands > of years ago, God was known as "An" or the "Sky God" of Sumerian > mythology. We know this because the Bible claims Abraham came from > Ur which was located in Sumer. (See http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ > ) > > According to http://www.stevesdinner.plus.com/swd17.htm , > "Orthodox tradition represents Abraham as a member of a Semitic tribe > from Ur. He probably spoke Akkadian, and the Akkadian counterparts of > the Sumerian gods Enki, An, Enlil, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna would have > been known to Abraham as Ea, Anu, Bel, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar. > Abraham's tribe left Ur and travelled to Harran in southeastern > Turkey." > > There's also the similarity between Sumerian mythology and the Bible: > in Sumerian mythology, the first man was named Adapa! Later the > world was destroyed by An in a great flood from which there was only > one survivor who survived by building a boat that carried him, his > family > and all their animals! These similarities are pointed out on > http://www.historel.net/english/orient/03mesop.htm which is a theist > site that doesn't seem to mind admitting the similarity between the > Bible and other mythology! Yet it still refers to "God" as if he > actually existed! > > The Bible also makes reference to the ancient Hebrew goddess Astarte > and refers to her as the "Queen of Heaven": > > "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the > women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to > pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to > anger." - Jeremiah 7:18 > > "But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own > mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out > drink > offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, > and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of > Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw > no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of > heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all > things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And > when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink > offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour > out > drink offerings unto her, without our men?" - Jeremiah 44:17-19 > > "We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense > to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye > will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows." - > Jeremiah 44:25 > > The name Astarte is easily associated with that of the Sumerian > goddess Ishtar who was also known as the "Queen of Heaven". (See > http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/origsin.htm > http://www.cmy.on.ca/newletters/aug2004.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar > and http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ishtar.html ) > > Besides mentioning that Abraham came from Ur in Sumer, the Bible also > mentions the city of Babylon and the "Tower of Babel" that was > supposedly built there. The Babylonians were hated by the Hebrews > and to this day "to babble" means to speak nonsense. The Garden of > Eden was also located in Sumer according to Genesis 2:10-14: > > "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it > was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is > Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where > there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium > and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the > same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name > of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the > east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates." > > The Euphrates river ran through Sumer, which is now Iraq. > > It is worth noting that http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ > is actually a theist site! They refer to Anu as " the one God" but > claim that "Ea" and "Bel" were just other names for the same god. > This contradicts the fact that Anu, Ea and Bel were worshipped > separately in Sumer as three distinct Gods. (Anu was the god of the > sky, Bel was the god of wind and Ea was the god of water. Sumerian > mythology claimed that humans were created by Ea.) > > According to http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html > "Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two > serpents ... entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus > symbol used by modern Western medicine." As Ea was the god of > knowledge, was the guardian of the "Tree of Life" in Sumerian > mythology and he was symbolized by a snake, it stands to reason that > the snake in the myth of the garden of Eden represented Ea. Bel was > similarly hated by Hebrews: according to the old testament, God told > the Hebrews to kill worshippers of "Baal" if they didn't obey his > first commandment to "not have other gods before Him". > > What is interesting is that theists today are willing to accept that > their god was the god An of Sumer but they don't see why this should > be a challenge to faith. > ( http://www.christianblog.com/blog/thomas/abram-was-from-sumer-after-all/ > ) An was the most powerful god in Sumerian mythology and hence it is > understandable that Abraham would choose him as the "one true god" > and dismiss all the others but then the question would be if Anu > (God) exists then what about all the other gods. > > So God is just a myth created by man to explain the world around him > and give him comfort. If that's not good enough for you, consider > the fact that God had been used in the past to explain everything > from > storms to floods to earthquakes to volcanic eruptions but that we now > have scientific explanations for all of these calamities and thus > don't need to use any gods (let alone God) to explain them. > The fact is that scientists can perform measurements today that agree > with the predictions of quantum theory to ten digit precision and > accuracy. The so called "God of the gaps" has become so > infinitessimally small that we can feel confident that it doesn't > exist at all. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Thanks for the interesting information. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 In article <1178579730.476280.280860@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 4:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178510378.669243.168...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life > > > > evolved from non-life. It must be because of faith because there is no > > > > evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life > > > > can evolve from non-life. > > > > > A virus is alive. Bacteria is alive. Animals are alive. Who, > > > besides creationists, says life evolved from non-life? Don't forget > > > that the Bible says that man was created from dust. No scientist > > > believes that crap. > > > > > > I believe that God created the earth and created > > > > Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants. > > > > > That is a matter of faith. It must be because of faith because there > > > is no evidence that your god ever existed. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > We have fossil evidence > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I'm sorry but you're lying. > > No physical evidence can prove the existance of a supernatural being. > If you find something in nature then it came to be naturally and not > through the intervention of a mythological creature. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Sorry--I should have been more clear. The fossil evidence that I was referring to are fossils of plants and animals. You can learn more about those fossils by visiting the icr.org or it might be icr.com and ordering a book entitled: "Evolution: The Fossils Say No". Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 In article <1178579397.431687.28590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 4:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Yes, I believe that God created Adam, Eve, lots of plants and lots of > > animals. I realize that I don't have a video tape to prove it. The only > > evidence is fossil evidence. If you visit the ICR website, you could > > purchase at least one those books that discuss the fossil evidence. Of > > course, I doubt that you would ever read that book. > > You know very well that fossil evidence proves evolution: if god > created life as is then there shouldn't even be ancient fossils. > > > You stated that there > > is evidence that chimps and humans share a common genetic ancestor. It's > > my opinion that the reason that chimps and humans are similar is because > > God made humans and he made chimps. It would have been logical for God to > > use some of the same genetic materials to make humans and monkeys and > > apes. One of the reasons that I concentrate on how life began on this > > planet is because it is the main difference between creation science and > > evolution. If evolutionists are incorrect related to how life began on > > this planet, it means they are also wrong about some of the aspects of > > evolution such as what Matt refers to as "common descent". > > That doesn't follow. For starters, evolution doesn't say anything > about how life came to be on this planet. Even if you want to believe > that your god was responsible for the "spark of life" that began life > on Earth, it still doesn't change the fact that men and gorillas share > a common ancestor. > > The fact is that human beings are gentically 97% identical to > gorillas, > skeltons of human ancestors have been found dating back 1 million, 2 > million, even 3 million years and clearly show how human beings have > evolved over time, a gorilla skeleton would look no different to an > untrained eye to that of a human skeleton of the same size, gorilla > behavior in the wild is no different than that of what human tribal > behaviour would be like if we didn't have language and were thus > unable > to share knowledge, chimpanzees can be taught sign language and not > only communicate with people but also teach sign language to their > offspring, the human body has the same number of pores as that of a > gorilla's and the fact that people of different races demonstrate > adaptions to their environment shows that evolution continues to this > day and that it's not a process with an end result. > > That just covers the descent of man. In addition to this evidence > there > is the fossil evidence which dates back billions of years and clearly > shows > that life began with simple organisms and that more complex creatures > appeared later: even transitional forms can be seen, including fish > with legs and dinosaurs with wings. To say that "no species has ever > been observed to transform from one to another" is a lie because it > can be observed in the fossil records. We also observe species going > extinct in the wild, confirming the mechanism of evolution, namely > natural selection: species who cannot adapt to changes in the > environment do die out and those with the advantages necessary to > survive do survive. This is demonstrated most clearly with viruses > and bacteria: viruses DO mutate to form new viruses and bacteria DOES > survive if it has the advantage of, say, being resistant to a given > anti-biotic. To claim that God is creating new deadly viruses and > making bacteria resistant to anti-biotics is to say that God is a > mass murderer. > > Evolution is not just a theory. It is an observed fact. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, I believe that Evolution is a theory. I support the aspects of evolution that can be proved in a laboratory or in scientific experiments. I don't support the aspects of evolution that can not be proved. For example, you indicated that human beings are gentically 97% identical to gorillas. You could ASSUME that indicates a common ancestor but you have NO proof that there was a common ancestor unless you produced the bones of that common ancestor. I could just as easily assume that the reason human beings are gentically 97% identical to gorillas is because God used the same sorts of genetic materials to make humans and gorillas. I will continue to believe that my assumption is true and you will probably continue to believe that your assumption is true. Neither of us have evidence to prove our assumptions. I hope that you see my point. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest SeppoP Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178510378.669243.168180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 7, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> Matt, >>> When people eat meat, their bodies break down the meat and the end result >>> is amino acids. They are the cheif components of proteins. I know enough >>> to know that life does NOT evolve from non-life. Amino acids are NOT >>> living cells. You seem to believe that life could evolve from amino acids >>> but before I could believe it, you would have to provide evidence that it >>> can happen. It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life >>> evolved from non-life. It must be because of faith because there is no >>> evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life >>> can evolve from non-life. >> A virus is alive. Bacteria is alive. Animals are alive. Who, >> besides creationists, says life evolved from non-life? Don't forget >> that the Bible says that man was created from dust. No scientist >> believes that crap. >> >>> I believe that God created the earth and created >>> Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants. >> That is a matter of faith. It must be because of faith because there >> is no evidence that your good ever existed. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We have fossil evidence > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god is fossilized? That makes sense... <snip> -- Seppo P. What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005) Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 In article <1178596902.410592.182330@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 12:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > There are some genetic problems that run in families and in races of > > people. For example, Sickle Cell anema predominatly affects people of > > African descent. Perhaps the Neanderthals were a race of humans that had > > unique features. You probably have read about African pygmies--they are > > under 5 feet tall. Do you believe that if I had some bones from an African > > pygmy child and I took those bones to a scientist or doctor that he would > > be able to tell me that those bones were from an African pygmy child or > > just that they were the bones from an African child. Do you see my point? > > Actually, no I don't. Evolution is about diversification: the very > fact that there are different races of man and different breeds of dog > point to evolution in action (although in the case of dog breeds it is > more a question of artificial selection than natural selection). That > neanderthals appear to be a race of humans that just naturally > disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution! (Note that > different breed of dogs might as well be different species as it would > be impossible for a poodle to mate with a great dane!) > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ good point--Neanderthals could breed with Cro-Magnums and produce offspring which could mean that they were a race of people. Do you agree? You appear to have an excellent understanding of genetics. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On May 8, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178596902.410592.182...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 8, 12:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > There are some genetic problems that run in families and in races of > > > people. For example, Sickle Cell anema predominatly affects people of > > > African descent. Perhaps the Neanderthals were a race of humans that had > > > unique features. You probably have read about African pygmies--they are > > > under 5 feet tall. Do you believe that if I had some bones from an African > > > pygmy child and I took those bones to a scientist or doctor that he would > > > be able to tell me that those bones were from an African pygmy child or > > > just that they were the bones from an African child. Do you see my point? > > > Actually, no I don't. Evolution is about diversification: the very > > fact that there are different races of man and different breeds of dog > > point to evolution in action (although in the case of dog breeds it is > > more a question of artificial selection than natural selection). That > > neanderthals appear to be a race of humans that just naturally > > disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution! (Note that > > different breed of dogs might as well be different species as it would > > be impossible for a poodle to mate with a great dane!) > > good point--Neanderthals could breed with Cro-Magnums and produce > offspring which could mean that they were a race of people by definition. Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On 7 May 2007 14:42:50 -0700, Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote: >On May 7, 4:59 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: >> On May 7, 3:25 pm, Fartbreaker <Fartbrea...@bigsecret.com> lied: >> [snip] >> >> > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. >> > Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? >> >> No, but we see you turning into a jackass every time you post >> something and turning into a chicken every time I challenge you. > > >I thought it takes 3 billions days or hours for one >specy to evolve into another. "Specy?" Jesus H. Christ, you're fucking stupid. >I have been posting here for only 5 years. Five years too long. >So does your >chicken have feet or legs? It has a great big cock that it's going to shove right up your ass. > >> >> [snip] >> >> Budikka > Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 bobcrowley@dodo.com.au wrote: >>>Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There >>>is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. >> >>Here's another one: a super-nuclear intergallactic donkey farted the entire >>Universe and a few others out of his ass after eating a rotten burrito. >>In his awesome power, of course. Yeah, and authority. >> >>-- >>Come down off the cross >>We can use the wood >> >>Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House > > > One can always depend on vituperative from Charles and Mambo Duckman. > > Nothing else though. > > Just verbal crap. I don't see how my alternative is any worse than hers. Please explain why this is "verbal crap" and "God in His awesome power and authority" isn't. Also, how seeing the "devil" in the smoke of the Twin Towers isn't a sign of mental illness or, at best, a delusional fantasy. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Peter Barber Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On May 7, 4:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Yes, the distance from the earth to the sun changes but as you know, the > change in distance is not enough to cause any major problems. I once read > an article When was that? What article? > indicating that life on earth would come to an end if a huge > asteroid (about the size of the moon) hit the earth and caused the earth > to be in an orbit that was vastly different than it now is. For example, > life does not exist on the planets that are nearest earth and there is not > even life on the moon. > > There is a term that I heard or read in a ICR publication several years > ago. "Several years ago"? So long ago, in fact, that you can no longer recall even the medium of the publication! > The term is "spark of life". It simply means that you could have all > of the materials that were needed to produce life. However, in order for > life to be created from that material (eg amino acids and other > materials), the spark of life is needed. Christians believe God was the > source of the spark of life that caused life to be produced. Of course, > evolutionists believed that natural forces were involved. I once saw a > film produced by evolutionists You "once saw a film"? When? What film? > that showed lighting strikes hitting the > primordial soup. I doubt that they still show that stupid movie to high > school biology students. It seems you haven't watched or read anything relevant to discussion of evolutionary theory for a very long time. If you wish to demonstrate that I'm wrong, please (a) cite the articles to which you refer, and (b) put together an cogent argument showing how those articles support your conclusions. > The evolutionists control the peer review process. That's the reason > Christian Science Professors rarely ever waste their time writing articles > that would never be published. Do you mean Science Professors who are Christian, or Professors of Christian Science? If the former, did you realise that they publish hundreds of thousands of articles a year? If the latter, could you define this branch of science? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On Tue, 08 May 2007 02:35:53 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <5d6043564511vqf2pc2rpks41hl6fv78fs@4ax.com> >On 7 May 2007 14:42:50 -0700, Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> >wrote: > >>On May 7, 4:59 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: >>> On May 7, 3:25 pm, Fartbreaker <Fartbrea...@bigsecret.com> lied: >>> [snip] >>> >>> > Observed by who??? You are being a false witness. >>> > Did you ever observed a chimp turning into a human being? >>> >>> No, but we see you turning into a jackass every time you post >>> something and turning into a chicken every time I challenge you. >> >> >>I thought it takes 3 billions days or hours for one >>specy to evolve into another. > >"Specy?" Jesus H. Christ, you're fucking stupid. > >>I have been posting here for only 5 years. > >Five years too long. > >>So does your >>chicken have feet or legs? > >It has a great big cock that it's going to shove right up your ass. His Ass evolved from a Donkey. That is the reason that his Onager evolved into Onanism. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:54:04 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: - Refer: <rvadnZrCocgRg93bnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com> >bobcrowley@dodo.com.au wrote: > >>>>Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There >>>>is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. >>> >>>Here's another one: a super-nuclear intergallactic donkey farted the entire >>>Universe and a few others out of his ass after eating a rotten burrito. >>>In his awesome power, of course. Yeah, and authority. >>> >>>-- >>>Come down off the cross >>>We can use the wood >>> >>>Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House >> >> >> One can always depend on vituperative from Charles and Mambo Duckman. >> >> Nothing else though. >> >> Just verbal crap. > >I don't see how my alternative is any worse than hers. Please explain why >this is "verbal crap" and "God in His awesome power and authority" isn't. >Also, how seeing the "devil" in the smoke of the Twin Towers isn't a sign of >mental illness or, at best, a delusional fantasy. In Bob's case, it is both. -- Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:56:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >snip > > >> So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not exactly >> impressive. > >You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling you how many >years ago that God created all life forms. When I get to heaven, ....which will be never, since there's no such thing. > I will >ask one of the angels all of my questions. You indated that the earth is >exactly 4.5 billion years old. I checked a reference book and it states >"The earth was formed at the same time as the sun, about 4.6 billion years >ago". Source: The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" Which date is most >accurate? It appears that even evolutionists can not agree on the date >that the earth and sun were formed. >That's not impressive. IOW: you prefer dogma to reality. Gotcha. >> And why would we expect to find that? Fossilization is rare, even more >> rare for land animals, even more rare for savannah animals. Have you >> looked at the fossils that we do have? > >I have seen fossils in museums. I have read a book related to fossils. The >title was "Evolution: The Fossils Say No" Yes--that ICR bullshit. Just because the ICR writes it doesn't make it true. Especially with Gish's bullfrog nonsense. You should look that up and see how much of a fool Gish made of himself with that. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It > might be icr.com or icr.org Why in the world would anyone with half a brain want to waste their time on that nonsense? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Anna R., D.Min." <annaroberts1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178482176.288791.80400@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There > is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Are you serious? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > > Matt, > I will not try to respond to all of your questions since I no longer have > any reference books or notes. I don't have the energy needed to spend > hours on the net trying to find the information that I would need to > respond to all of your questions. Therefore, I will only respond to a > couple of your questions. If Erick Von Danikan's theory is correct, the > evidence of how life came to be or how the species came to be would be on > that other planet and not on the earth. If God created life What god? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0605071835480001@66-52-22-105.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > Matt, > When people eat meat, their bodies break down the meat and the end result > is amino acids. They are the cheif components of proteins. I know enough > to know that life does NOT evolve from non-life. Amino acids are NOT > living cells. You seem to believe that life could evolve from amino acids > but before I could believe it, you would have to provide evidence that it > can happen. It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life > evolved from non-life. It must be because of faith because there is no > evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life > can evolve from non-life. I believe that God created the earth What god? Got any proof that one exists? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0605072212020001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> What is "the" species? But are you saying that you accept common >> descent? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > No, they don't accept common descent. I meant that God created Adam, Eve, > lots of plants and lots of animals. You really believe this? Oh my. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 8, 2007 Posted May 8, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0705072156340001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > snip > > >> So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not exactly >> impressive. > > You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling you how many > years ago that God created all life forms. What's your evidence that this god exists and created anything? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.