🚀 go-pugleaf

"Nygaard" <olavknBR�GLEBR�GLEBR�GLE@online.no> wrote in message
news:3ad3aa2b.208481010@news.online.no...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:23:06 GMT, "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
> >fact why is it a theory. God bless
>
> This is a very interesting statement to consider. Could you please
> explain further, Clarence? Why is there no such thing as a non perfect
> scripture? How exactly do you define scripture? And are you familiar
> with the basic terminology used in philosophy?
>
> >"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
> >news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
> >> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> >> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> >> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> >> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> >> not make God unnecessary.
>
> Agrees. It does, however, pose some very complicated questions about
> the nature of matter, energy and information.

True.

>
> And a simpler question: How can a god creating something as infinitely
> vast as the multi/universe be capable of understanding and interacting
> with human beings? How can one describe such a power in terms of a
> personality with desires, an intilligence and a will?

Because God is an infinite God: He has the purest existence and infinite
knowledge. He is capable of knowing and understanding all things. He can
understand us because he can understand his own creations; he can interact
with us because he can shape the universe according to his will. The power
is not God; the power is one element of God, "concentrated," if you will, in
the Creator facet of the Trinity, God the Father.

>
> >>However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> >> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> >> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Trouble with this approach is that most of the bible must become
> subject to some horribly radical reinterpretation. How do you
> compare/equal the God of Abraham with the thing that created the
> horsehead nebula?

Easily. As God created the cosmos and a home for his intelligent creations
(of whom we are only one species), he created humanity. This is one of the
fundamental mysteries of Christianity: how someone as big as God could
associate with people as small as we are, and care enough about us to die on
the cross and chain the forces of evil.

>
> >> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> >> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> >> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> >> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> >> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> >> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> >> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> >> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> I choose to act as if these people are a minority, as the alternative
> is not a nice thing to contemplate. The combination of religion and
> science - in an "equal partnership" - is a very powerful thing.

Very true.

> Unfortunately, the possibility of a consolation between the two are
> likely very far away. None of the parts seem to be very eager to
> cooperate at the moment...

On the contrary. I am a man of science and a man of faith. I see science as
the attempt to understand God's universe. Faith is the attempt to understand
and follow God.

Aaron Potts

>
> ...
>
> Anders
> ...
>
> "Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
> powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
> deeply and personally concerned about my sex life."
> - ?
>

Thank you. With people like you, this generation may be saved.

A man of science and faith,

Aaron Potts

"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
>

There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
fact why is it a theory. God bless

"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
>

You know, actually I don't give that much how the earth has evolved... was
it evolution, or was it mere creationism... all I do know is, I believe that
God is at the basis of it all, as is he the final goal too. In between those
too, God is the one who gives meaning to my life, and He is the one who
fills the love and gives us freedom to follow our conscience.

Maybe God created this world within a pattern of laws and rules, but He sure
did allow lots of freedom too. Praise Him for that.

Maybe mankind has existed all the time in its current form, but I do see
some humans that seem to proove that evolution didn't apply on them, and
that they still behave like animals (but then mutated ones).

So basically, I don't care that much how God put the first spin to this big
blue marble... as far as I'm concerned, He twitched it in His fingers and it
started spinning... what does count for me, is that God loves me for who I
am, and that He puts people on my path that give meaning to my life. He
certainly listens to my prayers too.

Oh well,
maybe I'm just a wise ape, or a stupid human.
Who'll tell.

Bless ya all...
Jurgen.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:23:06 GMT, "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net>
wrote:

>There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
>fact why is it a theory. God bless

This is a very interesting statement to consider. Could you please
explain further, Clarence? Why is there no such thing as a non perfect
scripture? How exactly do you define scripture? And are you familiar
with the basic terminology used in philosophy?

>"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
>news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
>> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
>> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
>> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
>> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
>> not make God unnecessary.

Agrees. It does, however, pose some very complicated questions about
the nature of matter, energy and information.

And a simpler question: How can a god creating something as infinitely
vast as the multi/universe be capable of understanding and interacting
with human beings? How can one describe such a power in terms of a
personality with desires, an intilligence and a will?

>>However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
>> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
>> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.

Trouble with this approach is that most of the bible must become
subject to some horribly radical reinterpretation. How do you
compare/equal the God of Abraham with the thing that created the
horsehead nebula?

>> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
>> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
>> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
>> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
>> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
>> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
>> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
>> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.

I choose to act as if these people are a minority, as the alternative
is not a nice thing to contemplate. The combination of religion and
science - in an "equal partnership" - is a very powerful thing.
Unfortunately, the possibility of a consolation between the two are
likely very far away. None of the parts seem to be very eager to
cooperate at the moment...

...

Anders
...

"Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life."
- ?

clarence wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
> fact why is it a theory. God bless

That evolution happened is a fact. HOW it happened is the "theory" part,
and there are several of those. Only one stands up to the evidence.
Besides that, you're confused about the scientific use of the word
theory. Few doubt germ theory, i.e. that germs cause disease, but it
isn't called germ law.

From http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

"There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be
facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three
categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor
mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can
be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same
time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of
gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do
observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is
also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force
we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity
works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is
the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac
Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical
equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable
natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how
this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical
description of this natural occurrence."

By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation

Of course, I disagree with a lot of what the creationist says...but this
ought to at least answer your question.

--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

In article <3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org>, johndcal@faithreason.org wrote:

> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates;

What an outrageous statement!  You just proclaim that some god created it
all because it makes you feel good? and of course, you want other people
to emotionally accept this simplistic construction and 'feel good'...

You can't define the concept of a god, you don't define the verb
'create'.  You certainly don't understand what gravity is (or 'time'
either).  You don't provide or point to any evidence to convince us that
your contradictory belief has any more merit than some other pipedream
that has been fine-tuned for the evolved sensibilities of the human
animal.

> we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins.

Evolution is just change.  Do creationists expect no change?

> It does
> not make God unnecessary.

Evolution is just change.  No progress, no evil ramifications.

> However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe.

We agree.

> Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.

First imagined?  heh

> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.

Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
and a way out in the boonies!

If this universe turns out to be one of a multitude of quantum
fluctuations which inflated, then 'God' can be no more than the name of
the 'thing' we thank for the existence of quantum fluctuations, because
there is 'nothing' else!  <pun intended>

> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),

It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
bangs. <grin>

Thanks John,
Geron

> and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)

In article <3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org>, johndcal@faithreason.org wrote:

> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates;

What an outrageous statement!  You just proclaim that some god created it
all because it makes you feel good? and of course, you want other people
to emotionally accept this simplistic construction and likewise 'feel good'...

You can't define the concept of a god, you don't define the verb
'create'.  You certainly don't understand what gravity is (or 'time'
either).  You don't provide or point to any evidence to convince us that
your contradictory belief has any more merit than some other pipedream
that has been fine-tuned for the evolved sensibilities of the human
animal.

> we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins.

Evolution is just change.  Do creationists expect no change?

> It does
> not make God unnecessary.

Evolution is just change.  No progress, no evil ramifications.

> However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe.

We agree.

> Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.

First imagined?  heh

> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.

Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
and a way out in the boonies!

If this universe turns out to be one of a multitude of quantum
fluctuations which inflated, then 'God' can be no more than the name of
the 'thing' we thank for the existence of quantum fluctuations, because
there is 'nothing' else!  <pun intended>

> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang),

It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
bangs. <grin>

Thanks John,
Geron

> and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)

johndcal@faithreason.org (John D. Callahan) wrote in 
<3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org>:

>God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
>operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
>about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
>Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
>not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
>Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
>universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.

And God is bigger and more complex than we CAN imagine.

>Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
>science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
>mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
>tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
>they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
>evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
>Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
>a short-lived victory for such a strategy.

ID is an unfortunate development in some respects.  It is deriving a correct 
conclusion from faulty premises.  That is to say, God is the creator of all 
things, visible and invisible, just like it says in the ancient Creed.  But 
it is not possible to prove this by examining the created things themselves.  
The reason is actually quite simple.  There is nothing in nature that God did 
NOT create to use for a comparison.  Wherever you turn your telescope or your 
microscope, you are looking at the creations of God.  It is not logically (or 
physically possible) to single something out and say that you KNOW it is 
created by God because of some difference from the other things.

Many Christians fear that evolution makes God unnecessary.  And atheists do 
take advantage of it in just that vein.  But God is always necessary, not as 
a scientific explanation of how the universe works, but as the ground and 
source of our very being.  Evolution only LOOKS unguided, in the same fashion 
as a coin toss.  WE cannot predict the timing and results of particular 
mutations, any more than WE can predict which way a coin will fall.  But God 
is sovereign over ALL forces in the universe.  Our Christian God is not some 
remote deist deity who wound up the universe, only to forget it.  He is 
present in all natural events, from the tiny spark of a decaying uranium atom 
to the thundering, seething explosion of a giant supernova to the bizarre 
entities of collapsed matter that we can only perceive by the billions of 
solar masses of stuff falling into them, He is there, not remote, but 
intimately present in the very heart of everything and everyone.

"For God so loves the cosmos that He gives His only-begotten son that whoever 
believes on Him might have life everlasting."  John 3:16, my translation.  

What a concept!

>But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
>(including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
>non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
>a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
>http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)

Thanks.  We need to understand, I think, that God is not going to reveal 
Himself to us in the physical universe's normal operations.  If it were that 
easy, there would not be any atheists and there would only be one religion 
really.  Instead, He prefers to be known by faith.  He DOES intervene 
occasionally with a special miracle, and those seem to proliferate where 
there is real faith.  But those are, by their very special quality, not 
suitable as science data for any general "theory of God."  We are left with 
faith and revelation, neither of which have ever really been absent from us.

-- 
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
   --me, 2000AD
   
   

"clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote in 
<KtNA6.2014$Kd5.145251@news0.telusplanet.net>:

>There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
>fact why is it a theory. God bless

It's both.  Gravity is a fact (things fall).  It is also a theory (all things 
are attracted to one another).  The facts of evolution are as follows:

   1.  Every generation of every species contains new mutations.
   2.  Most species reproduce in numbers far more than survive to
       reproduce the next generation.  This is even true in humans
       (and all other mammals) when you take sperm and ova into 
       consideration (as we must).
   3.  Some variants have reproductive advantages with respect to
       others and their frequency tends to increase relative to those.
   4.  Isolated populations diverge genetically.
   5.  The fossil record covers billions of years and is phylogenetically
       sorted.  That is, it is possible to erect a hierarchy of descent
       from its features.
   6.  It is possible to infer a hierarchy of descent from the genetics
       of living (and dead where materials are available) organisms.
   7.  These two independent hierarchies of descent are near enough identical
       that we can reliably infer that they are the same phenomenon.

That is the observed FACTS of evolution.  There are several THEORIES of 
evolution that deal with ideas about how these factors interact, rates of 
change, etc.  In Darwin's day, some of the above facts were not even 
discovered, but were predictions of his original theory of evolution by means 
of natural selection.

But "theory" in science does not mean "wisd-assed guess," like it does in 
some TV shows.

-- 
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
   --me, 2000AD
   
   

It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
Creationism.  However,
Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent of
the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds who
usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.  If it
sounds too good to be true, it probably isnt.  Same can be said of the Big
Bust er...Big Bang. What a bunch of nonsense.  In fact the big bang model
has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its always
then
promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.  Science is the
new religion these days.

Creationists who believe in either theory are in for a big surprise, because
both are full of gross errors of
which one doesnt have to be an astrophysicist to see through.  Our universe
began on a spiral, not from an
explosion.  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more big crunch.
Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So big
bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of stars.
Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes into
existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the big
explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it was
"updated" but sillily remained the same theory.  Then it was finally
understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or energy,
for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion year
old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they dont
know how, and cant fathom why!!!!  So you see, people, science doesnt know
everything, far from it.  They who believe solely in science, are just
hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
without fear or judgement.  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt explain
the origin of the species, because life can only repeat ONLY come from life.
Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two different things.  Place any
organism in a medium of its own waste, and you'll see how long that organism
will adapt to entropy, or death.  Not very long.  That is part of biological
laws.  Thats a basic law of biology as taught by biologists themselves.  Are
they so out to lunch, that they teach as law one thing, and then completely
contradict it in another.....all because they hate the Spirit.  TO believe
in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely discovered
what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact, that you simply
put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some "superior intellectual
mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.

Enough said, if you still dont get it, well then, get a life.

"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)
>

geron wrote:
>
> Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
> that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
> absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
> group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
> center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
> significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
> universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
> and a way out in the boonies!

Sounds to me like the God who designed the universe and placed
mankind out here in the boonies knew us very well.  He knew that,
even when presented with this overwhelming evidence of our
insignificance, it would barely tap the brakes on our rampaging
sense of self-importance.  (Talk about Inflation Theories!)

Our humility needs *all* the help it can get.  So, thanks,
God, for sticking us here in the boonies.  And in such a pretty
corner of them.  (Anybody been catching the auroras the last
few weeks?  Solar max won't roll around again for eleven more
years, so grab a lawn chair and watch 'em while you can.)

> It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
> bangs. <grin>

So you'd prefer "Little Pop"? Or, with no apologies to Eliot,
"This is the way the world begins, not with a bang but a whimper?"

We just might be approaching an all-bets-are-off time in physics.
These recent observations demonstrating the acceleration of the
universe could be our turn of the century's equivalent for the
Michaelson-Morley experiment at the last century's turn.  The Big
Bang itself continues to look solid -- so far -- but you gotta
wonder...

Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
Or maybe an Incomplete.

Fluffy Critter wrote:
>
> It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> Creationism.  However,
> Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent of
> the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds who
> usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.

Your ignorance of the evidence and probable unwillingness to
examine it is duly noted.

> In fact the big bang model
> has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
> marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its
> always then promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.

The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke. The basic
theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)  Many
particular models of the earliest history of the Big Bang have
been tossed around, but none of them has ever had universal
acceptance in the scientific community. And none of them has ever
been declared to be "absolute truth"; religious dogman works that
way, but science doesn't.

> Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.

Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")

>  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
> again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more
> big crunch.

Yes, it led to thinking about the big crunch - as one of the
possibilities.  Scientists knew all along, and said all along,
that whether there would be a big crunch depended on the overall
density of matter, which had not yet been measured.

Once it was measured sufficiently, they said: okay, we'd been
saying we don't know whether there will be a big crunch; now
we know; there won't be.  (Actually, they're still not saying
that we *know* - just that it's looking extremely unlikely.)

> Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So big
> bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of stars.
> Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes into
> existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the big
> explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it was
> "updated" but sillily remained the same theory.

The birth of stars is completely compatible with the law of entropy
increase.  You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
scientific paradigm.  And the birth of stars does not mean that
"new matter" has come into existence.  Stars are born when already
existing matter condenses under the influence of gravitation.

Of course, new matter *can* come into existence, or go out of
existence, and does all the time.  Since Einstein's special theory
of relativity, it's been recognized that what's constant is not
matter, but the sum total of mass and energy.

>  Then it was finally
> understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or energy,
> for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion year
> old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
> existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
> blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they dont
> know how, and cant fathom why!!!!

Sounds like someone fed you a *very* garbled version of the
discovery of the cosmic background radiation. Not only can scientists
"fathom why" that radiation exists, they were able to predict both
its wavelength, and the scale of its fluctuations, before either
was observed.

Photons in the cosmic microwave background have not lost any of
their energy (they never had any rest mass), because they haven't
collided with anything since the universe first became large enough
to allow light to travel.  What blew the minds of astrophysicists
was that we could actually see and measure what we had predicted -
even though it was almost as old as the universe itself.

> So you see, people, science doesnt know everything, far from it.

Science never claimed to know everything.  What you have made
clear is that you know relatively little yet about science.

>  They who believe solely in science, are just
> hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
> without fear or judgement.

Here we are firmly agreed.  To rule something out of court as unreal,
whenever science cannot measure it, is a recipe for spiritual death.

>  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
> the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt
> explain the origin of the species, because life can only repeat
> ONLY come from life. Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two
> different things.

This is a point that evolutionists too are in fact always making:
the origin of species (which evolution does explain) and the
origin of life (which evolution never claimed to explain) are
two very different things.  Whether a materialistic explanation
for the origin of life *could* exist is still very much an open
question.  But no one is claiming that we have one yet.

> TO believe
> in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
> Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely
> discovered what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact,
> that you simply put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some
> "superior intellectual mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.

Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."

Your full of shit.  I am not trying to point out every little damn detail
about steady state theory, big bang crap, or Darwinian evolutionary theory.
So you can take your insults to the ceramic bowl where they belong.  When a
theory is full of shit, like you, there is no need to anyways.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AD4994A.1746694B@earthlink.net...
> Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
> you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
> Or maybe an Incomplete.
>
> Fluffy Critter wrote:
> >
> > It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> > Creationism.  However,
> > Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent
of
> > the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds
who
> > usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.
>
> Your ignorance of the evidence and probable unwillingness to
> examine it is duly noted.
>
> > In fact the big bang model
> > has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
> > marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its
> > always then promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.
>
> The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
> believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke. The basic
> theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
> changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
> and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
> has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)  Many
> particular models of the earliest history of the Big Bang have
> been tossed around, but none of them has ever had universal
> acceptance in the scientific community. And none of them has ever
> been declared to be "absolute truth"; religious dogman works that
> way, but science doesn't.
>
> > Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.
>
> Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
> aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")
>
> >  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
> > again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more
> > big crunch.
>
> Yes, it led to thinking about the big crunch - as one of the
> possibilities.  Scientists knew all along, and said all along,
> that whether there would be a big crunch depended on the overall
> density of matter, which had not yet been measured.
>
> Once it was measured sufficiently, they said: okay, we'd been
> saying we don't know whether there will be a big crunch; now
> we know; there won't be.  (Actually, they're still not saying
> that we *know* - just that it's looking extremely unlikely.)
>
> > Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So
big
> > bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of
stars.
> > Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes
into
> > existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the
big
> > explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it
was
> > "updated" but sillily remained the same theory.
>
> The birth of stars is completely compatible with the law of entropy
> increase.  You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
> scientific paradigm.  And the birth of stars does not mean that
> "new matter" has come into existence.  Stars are born when already
> existing matter condenses under the influence of gravitation.
>
> Of course, new matter *can* come into existence, or go out of
> existence, and does all the time.  Since Einstein's special theory
> of relativity, it's been recognized that what's constant is not
> matter, but the sum total of mass and energy.
>
> >  Then it was finally
> > understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or
energy,
> > for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion
year
> > old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
> > existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
> > blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they
dont
> > know how, and cant fathom why!!!!
>
> Sounds like someone fed you a *very* garbled version of the
> discovery of the cosmic background radiation. Not only can scientists
> "fathom why" that radiation exists, they were able to predict both
> its wavelength, and the scale of its fluctuations, before either
> was observed.
>
> Photons in the cosmic microwave background have not lost any of
> their energy (they never had any rest mass), because they haven't
> collided with anything since the universe first became large enough
> to allow light to travel.  What blew the minds of astrophysicists
> was that we could actually see and measure what we had predicted -
> even though it was almost as old as the universe itself.
>
> > So you see, people, science doesnt know everything, far from it.
>
> Science never claimed to know everything.  What you have made
> clear is that you know relatively little yet about science.
>
> >  They who believe solely in science, are just
> > hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
> > without fear or judgement.
>
> Here we are firmly agreed.  To rule something out of court as unreal,
> whenever science cannot measure it, is a recipe for spiritual death.
>
> >  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
> > the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt
> > explain the origin of the species, because life can only repeat
> > ONLY come from life. Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two
> > different things.
>
> This is a point that evolutionists too are in fact always making:
> the origin of species (which evolution does explain) and the
> origin of life (which evolution never claimed to explain) are
> two very different things.  Whether a materialistic explanation
> for the origin of life *could* exist is still very much an open
> question.  But no one is claiming that we have one yet.
>
> > TO believe
> > in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
> > Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely
> > discovered what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact,
> > that you simply put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some
> > "superior intellectual mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.
>
> Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
> sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
> an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
> But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
> issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
> actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
> descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
> of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."

"Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AD4994A.1746694B@earthlink.net...
> Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
> you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
> Or maybe an Incomplete.

Whatever you say there, ask me if I care what you think.  Big Bang theory,
and evolution is still full of bs, just like you.

>
> Fluffy Critter wrote:
> >
> > It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> > Creationism.  However,
> > Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent
of
> > the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds
who
> > usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.
>
> Your ignorance of the evidence and probable unwillingness to
> examine it is duly noted.

Your bias and presumptions on the part of meaningless universe screams out
how loudly how much "science" has lobotomized you.


>
> > In fact the big bang model
> > has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
> > marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its
> > always then promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.
>
> The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
> believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke.

So what.  Its still treated as such, as in how much you tell me I dont
understand it.  What you fail miserably to realize that I do understand it,
I just dont agree with it.

The basic
> theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
> changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
> and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
> has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)

Yadda, yadda, yadda, still is full of gaping holes.

 Many
> particular models of the earliest history of the Big Bang have
> been tossed around, but none of them has ever had universal
> acceptance in the scientific community.

Your wrong.

And none of them has ever
> been declared to be "absolute truth"; religious dogman works that
> way, but science doesn't.
>

Well aint that a pickle.  Science gets away with belittling others for
thinking about things differently, all the while claiming to have no
"absolute truth".  You would make a good lawyer/liar by the way you twist
things to suite own self interests.

> > Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.
>
> Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
> aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")

It wasnt an explosion.....hmmmmmmmmm....where did  my english teacher go
wrong, big bang.....means not a big bang......hehehe... something tells me
your grasping at straws.  Ok, lets rename the same nonsense, big
expansion....chuckle.  Pardon while I get the air freshener, there seems to
be alot of bullshit in the air these days.

>
> >  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
> > again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more
> > big crunch.
>
> Yes, it led to thinking about the big crunch - as one of the
> possibilities.

I thought I barely got a D from your anti-christ science?  Now I see that
you actually agree with something I said, concerning the
not-really-a-big-bang...hehehe

  Scientists knew all along, and said all along,
> that whether there would be a big crunch depended on the overall
> density of matter, which had not yet been measured.

You actually mean some scientists, since as you put it, there are never any
absolutes within science.

>
> Once it was measured sufficiently, they said: okay, we'd been
> saying we don't know whether there will be a big crunch; now
> we know; there won't be.  (Actually, they're still not saying
> that we *know* - just that it's looking extremely unlikely.)

We always knew that the universe was infinite, and thus goes on forever, and
ever, and ever.  What tok you "scientists" so long to take your head out of
the sand, or should that be your asses?

>
> > Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So
big
> > bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of
stars.
> > Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes
into
> > existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the
big
> > explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it
was
> > "updated" but sillily remained the same theory.
>
> The birth of stars is completely compatible with the law of entropy
> increase.

The birth of stars doesnt always come from stellar gas, you sycophant.  Its
so easy to spout the status line of thinking isnt it.

You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
> scientific paradigm.

Your wrong.  The big bang originally described a universe, where no new
matter came into existence.  The first law of thermodynamics says, matter
cannot be created or destroyed.  Is that no taught anymore? Are you saying
it never was taught?  You get an F for science history.

And the birth of stars does not mean that
> "new matter" has come into existence.  Stars are born when already
> existing matter condenses under the influence of gravitation.
>
> Of course, new matter *can* come into existence, or go out of
> existence, and does all the time.  Since Einstein's special theory
> of relativity, it's been recognized that what's constant is not
> matter, but the sum total of mass and energy.

Semantic games above to state exactly what my point was all about, but made
to look like its in disagreement.  Hehehe, then again, no one ever said,
scientific sycophants arent full  of assumptions.  hehe, you know what
happens when you assume eh?

>
> >  Then it was finally
> > understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or
energy,
> > for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion
year
> > old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
> > existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
> > blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they
dont
> > know how, and cant fathom why!!!!
>
> Sounds like someone fed you a *very* garbled version of the
> discovery of the cosmic background radiation.

Sounds like you have no idea why Red Shift data is garbled.  Why?  Because
you can do nothing other than spout ideas from other people, and have none
of your own, which go against the grain of "scientific absoluteness".  Whats
the matter, afraid, your science is wrong?

Not only can scientists
> "fathom why" that radiation exists, they were able to predict both
> its wavelength, and the scale of its fluctuations, before either
> was observed.
>
> Photons in the cosmic microwave background have not lost any of
> their energy (they never had any rest mass), because they haven't
> collided with anything since the universe first became large enough
> to allow light to travel.

Actually your wrong again, photons do loose energy and come to be called
"tired light" plus photons become gravitationally trapped, in effect
transforming into atoms.  Man the bullshit meter is going off the scale,
when reading your response.  Pfffffff, pffffffff...(spraying more air
freshener in here)

  What blew the minds of astrophysicists
> was that we could actually see and measure what we had predicted -
> even though it was almost as old as the universe itself.

What a shocker, scientists blown away by their own intelligence.  hehehehe

>
> > So you see, people, science doesnt know everything, far from it.

You certainly demonstrated that, but all the while acting like there is no
way anything I said, could possibly be scientific reality.  Like cosmic
microwave background radiation (in other words, cosmic radiation) is none
other than us staring into a mirror.  But why should you understand that.

>
> Science never claimed to know everything.  What you have made
> clear is that you know relatively little yet about science.

All you demonstrated is the arrogance of the scientific priesthood, and that
you follow in the footsteps of unoriginal scientific sycophants.

>
> >  They who believe solely in science, are just
> > hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
> > without fear or judgement.
>
> Here we are firmly agreed.  To rule something out of court as unreal,
> whenever science cannot measure it, is a recipe for spiritual death.

Like your replies.

>
> >  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
> > the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt
> > explain the origin of the species, because life can only repeat
> > ONLY come from life. Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two
> > different things.
>
> This is a point that evolutionists too are in fact always making:
> the origin of species (which evolution does explain) and the
> origin of life (which evolution never claimed to explain) are
> two very different things.  Whether a materialistic explanation
> for the origin of life *could* exist is still very much an open
> question.  But no one is claiming that we have one yet.

Man you must be one confused dude.


>
> > TO believe
> > in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
> > Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely
> > discovered what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact,
> > that you simply put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some
> > "superior intellectual mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.
>
> Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
> sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
> an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
> But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
> issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
> actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
> descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
> of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."


That is a load of crap.  You have no idea what your talking about.  The
Spirit never spoke to you, and this I know.  You get an F in understanding
spiritual-science, as well as what the Spirit says about creation.  Your a
hypocrite and a sycophant.

Fluffy Critter wrote:
>
> "Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AD4994A.1746694B@earthlink.net...
> > Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
> > you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
> > Or maybe an Incomplete.
>
> Whatever you say there, ask me if I care what you think.  Big Bang theory,
> and evolution is still full of bs, just like you.

I'm curious. Are you some sort of theist? Which flavor?

> > Fluffy Critter wrote:
> > >
> > > It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> > > Creationism.  However,
> > > Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent

Do you know the difference between the two?

 is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds
> who
> > > usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.

Ah...like so many of the people sitting in pews on Sunday.


> > The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
> > believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke.
>
> So what.  Its still treated as such, as in how much you tell me I dont
> understand it.  What you fail miserably to realize that I do understand it,
> I just dont agree with it.

Nearly every sentence out of your mouth screams that you DON'T
understand it.

> The basic
> > theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
> > changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
> > and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
> > has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)
>
> Yadda, yadda, yadda, still is full of gaping holes.

Name some.

> > > Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.

You deride the Big Bang, but claim that the universe began? And it's
infinite in dimensions? And it began "on" a spiral?

> > Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
> > aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")
>
> It wasnt an explosion.....hmmmmmmmmm....where did  my english teacher go
> wrong, big bang.....means not a big bang......hehehe... something tells me
> your grasping at straws.  Ok, lets rename the same nonsense, big
> expansion....chuckle.  Pardon while I get the air freshener, there seems to
> be alot of bullshit in the air these days.

And it's all coming from you. The term Big Bang was a derisive label
coined by Fred Hoyle, a proponent (to say the least) of the Steady State
model. The label was kept, partly (so I've heard) as a dig against Hoyle
who deserves all of the digs that come his way.


> We always knew that the universe was infinite, and thus goes on forever, and
> ever, and ever.  What tok you "scientists" so long to take your head out of
> the sand, or should that be your asses?

It goes on forever, yet it had a beginning?

> You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
> > scientific paradigm.
>
> Your wrong.  The big bang originally described a universe, where no new
> matter came into existence.  The first law of thermodynamics says, matter
> cannot be created or destroyed.  Is that no taught anymore? Are you saying
> it never was taught?  You get an F for science history.

And you get an F for thinking that the laws of physics applied to the
universe in its earliest stages. Put simply, the laws were created
simultaneously with the universe; they didn't exist beforehand. That's
what comes of thinking that the Big Bang was an explosion.

On top of that, Fred Hoyle's original steady state model demanded the
creation of new matter.

> Actually your wrong again, photons do loose energy and come to be called
> "tired light" plus photons become gravitationally trapped, in effect
> transforming into atoms.  Man the bullshit meter is going off the scale,
> when reading your response.  Pfffffff, pffffffff...(spraying more air
> freshener in here)

The photons lose energy because they've collided with matter. If they
haven't had any such collisions, they're not "tired". I imagine that
next you're going to start telling us how full of crap Einstein was.

I'm not as gracious as Royce. I give you a flat-out F all the way
around. I'll up that to a D if you start using spelling and grammar
checkers; presentation counts. ;)

--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

Fluffy Critter wrote:
>
> Your full of shit.  I am not trying to point out every little damn detail
> about steady state theory, big bang crap, or Darwinian evolutionary theory.

No? Well over half your post consisted of details about (your
misunderstandings of) the big bang and Darwinian evolutionary theory.
If you weren't trying to point out details, why were you trying
(and failing) to do so?

> So you can take your insults to the ceramic bowl where they belong.
> When a theory is full of shit, like you, there is no need to anyways.

What insults?  All I did was to point out that you are ignorant
about certain topics.  That's hardly a character flaw.  It isn't
even necessarily a reflection on your intelligence.

> > Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
> > sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
> > an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
> > But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
> > issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
> > actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
> > descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
> > of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."

Nygard"  In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
was God, the Word of God is perfect, but man is not perfect and not all man
understand it, it requires much study and prayer.
   For instance in Gen.2:21, the Bible say's that God took a rib from adam
to creat eve, but the Scriptures say that he took a curve from Adam, I am
not a scientice but I know this has to do with the D.N.A. Man is just
begining to understand what was written thousands of years ago. God bless


"Nygaard" <olavknBR�GLEBR�GLEBR�GLE@online.no> wrote in message
news:3ad3aa2b.208481010@news.online.no...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:23:06 GMT, "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was a
> >fact why is it a theory. God bless
>
> This is a very interesting statement to consider. Could you please
> explain further, Clarence? Why is there no such thing as a non perfect
> scripture? How exactly do you define scripture? And are you familiar
> with the basic terminology used in philosophy?
>
> >"John D. Callahan" <johndcal@faithreason.org> wrote in message
> >news:3ad37ba8.14488885@news.lafn.org...
> >> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> >> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> >> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> >> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> >> not make God unnecessary.
>
> Agrees. It does, however, pose some very complicated questions about
> the nature of matter, energy and information.
>
> And a simpler question: How can a god creating something as infinitely
> vast as the multi/universe be capable of understanding and interacting
> with human beings? How can one describe such a power in terms of a
> personality with desires, an intilligence and a will?
>
> >>However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> >> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> >> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Trouble with this approach is that most of the bible must become
> subject to some horribly radical reinterpretation. How do you
> compare/equal the God of Abraham with the thing that created the
> horsehead nebula?
>
> >> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> >> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> >> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> >> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> >> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> >> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> >> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> >> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> I choose to act as if these people are a minority, as the alternative
> is not a nice thing to contemplate. The combination of religion and
> science - in an "equal partnership" - is a very powerful thing.
> Unfortunately, the possibility of a consolation between the two are
> likely very far away. None of the parts seem to be very eager to
> cooperate at the moment...
>
> ...
>
> Anders
> ...
>
> "Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
> powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
> deeply and personally concerned about my sex life."
> - ?
>

   Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong, science see's
for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small, and
then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then they
assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I prefer to
believe that the first species died out and God created a better one thats
more adapted for the conditions of the time.  Science has already proved
that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and still
there born with a full tail, only by changing the D.N.A. can anything change
and only God could have done that. God bless

"Honus" <honus1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AD3B2E9.EF508FC3@earthlink.net...
> clarence wrote:
> >
> > There is no such thing as a non perfect Scripture, and if evolution was
a
> > fact why is it a theory. God bless
>
> That evolution happened is a fact. HOW it happened is the "theory" part,
> and there are several of those. Only one stands up to the evidence.
> Besides that, you're confused about the scientific use of the word
> theory. Few doubt germ theory, i.e. that germs cause disease, but it
> isn't called germ law.
>
> From http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm
>
> "There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be
> facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three
> categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor
> mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can
> be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same
> time!
>
> Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of
> gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do
> observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is
> also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force
> we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity
> works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is
> the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac
> Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical
> equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and
> gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable
> natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how
> this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical
> description of this natural occurrence."
>
> By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
> Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation
>
> Of course, I disagree with a lot of what the creationist says...but this
> ought to at least answer your question.
>
> --
>
> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
> believed in.
> Some of us just go one god further.
>
>               Richard Dawkins

In article <3AD490C7.C20EB33F@earthlink.net>, figvine@earthlink.net wrote:

> geron wrote:
> >
> > Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
> > that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
> > absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
> > group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
> > center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
> > significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
> > universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
> > and a way out in the boonies!
>
> Sounds to me like the God who designed the universe and placed
> mankind out here in the boonies knew us very well.  He knew that,
> even when presented with this overwhelming evidence of our
> insignificance, it would barely tap the brakes on our rampaging
> sense of self-importance.  (Talk about Inflation Theories!)
>

heh

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,
but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux

> Our humility needs *all* the help it can get.  So, thanks,
> God, for sticking us here in the boonies.  And in such a pretty
> corner of them.  (Anybody been catching the auroras the last
> few weeks?  Solar max won't roll around again for eleven more
> years, so grab a lawn chair and watch 'em while you can.)
>
> > It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
> > bangs. <grin>
>
> So you'd prefer "Little Pop"? Or, with no apologies to Eliot,
> "This is the way the world begins, not with a bang but a whimper?"

> We just might be approaching an all-bets-are-off time in physics.
> These recent observations demonstrating the acceleration of the
> universe could be our turn of the century's equivalent for the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment at the last century's turn.  The Big
> Bang itself continues to look solid -- so far -- but you gotta
> wonder...

Yes, this new twist which has popped up from the study of distant
supernova observations is fascinating.  The assumption was made that the
brightness of specific types of supernovae are reliably determinable, even
across the eons.  The expansion rate seems not to have been constant, but
has been accelerating over timespans of billions of years.   :O

Maybe our universe is trying to speed up its maturation rate so that it
can begin reproducing. <grin>  As universes grow old and very expanded,
becoming in the process comprised of regions of extremely inflated
'inflaton' field, which in turn, can not any longer forestall the
emergence of new baby universes.  This Chaotic Inflationary Theory says
that this universe will get very 'icy' (apologies to R. Frost) 10^100
years from now, but its vacuum substrate, under those extremely inflated
conditions, is currently speculated to be THE very source of new baby
universes!  Maybe this acceleration will 'accelerate' this larger process,
in our larger Multiverse. <grinning>

Theological ramifications will be troubling for some, because baby
universes emerging 'naturally' from their extremely old and inflated
(overstretched) parent universes eliminates another task for any First
Cause entity.  Also, nothing can stop this process, it will never end.
And there never was a time without or 'before' universes, not only because
universes create their own time (or the illusion we name time),  -they
should be thought of as completely closed and self-referential, but also
because there never was a time without universes.  You might think that
this sounds redundant, circular and self-contingent, and you'd be right,
but this is one of the paradoxes of Chaotic Inflation.

Thanks Royce,
Geron

In article <3AD490C7.C20EB33F@earthlink.net>, figvine@earthlink.net wrote:

> geron wrote:
> >
> > Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
> > that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
> > absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
> > group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
> > center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
> > significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
> > universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
> > and a way out in the boonies!
>
> Sounds to me like the God who designed the universe and placed
> mankind out here in the boonies knew us very well.  He knew that,
> even when presented with this overwhelming evidence of our
> insignificance, it would barely tap the brakes on our rampaging
> sense of self-importance.  (Talk about Inflation Theories!)
>

heh

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,
but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux

> Our humility needs *all* the help it can get.  So, thanks,
> God, for sticking us here in the boonies.  And in such a pretty
> corner of them.

Actually recent Drake's Equation factors (the Earth/Moon conditions) have
yielded the result of nothing like humans, or even baboons, in the nearest
22 average-sized spiral galaxies from our own.  We should remain humble,
yes, but we should be much more grateful for Earth's favorable long-stable
conditions!  And this type of gratitude only comes about through
scientific discovery and education..

>  (Anybody been catching the auroras the last
> few weeks?  Solar max won't roll around again for eleven more
> years, so grab a lawn chair and watch 'em while you can.)
>
> > It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
> > bangs. <grin>
>
> So you'd prefer "Little Pop"? Or, with no apologies to Eliot,
> "This is the way the world begins, not with a bang but a whimper?"

> We just might be approaching an all-bets-are-off time in physics.
> These recent observations demonstrating the acceleration of the
> universe could be our turn of the century's equivalent for the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment at the last century's turn.  The Big
> Bang itself continues to look solid -- so far -- but you gotta
> wonder...

Yes, this new twist which has popped up from the study of distant
supernova observations is fascinating.  The assumption was made that the
brightness of specific types of supernovae are reliably determinable, even
across the eons.  The expansion rate seems not to have been constant, but
has been accelerating over timespans of billions of years.   :O

Maybe our universe is trying to speed up its maturation rate so that it
can begin reproducing. <grin>  As universes grow old and very expanded,
becoming in the process comprised of regions of extremely inflated
'inflaton' field, which in turn, can not any longer forestall the
emergence of new baby universes.  This Chaotic Inflationary Theory says
that this universe will get very 'icy' (apologies to R. Frost) 10^100
years from now, but its vacuum substrate, under those extremely inflated
conditions, is currently speculated to be THE very source of new baby
universes!  Maybe this acceleration will 'accelerate' this larger process,
in our larger Multiverse. <grinning>

Theological ramifications will be troubling for some, because baby
universes emerging 'naturally' from their extremely old and inflated
(overstretched) parent universes eliminates another task for any First
Cause entity.  Also, nothing can stop this process, it will never end.
And there never was a time without or 'before' universes, not only because
universes create their own time (or the illusion we name time),  -they
should be thought of as completely closed and self-referential, but also
because there never was a time without universes.  You might think that
this sounds redundant, circular and self-contingent, and you'd be right,
but this is one of the paradoxes of Chaotic Inflation.

Thanks Royce,
Geron

In article <3AD490C7.C20EB33F@earthlink.net>, figvine@earthlink.net wrote:

> geron wrote:
> >
> > Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
> > that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
> > absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
> > group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
> > center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
> > significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
> > universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
> > and a way out in the boonies!
>
> Sounds to me like the God who designed the universe and placed
> mankind out here in the boonies knew us very well.  He knew that,
> even when presented with this overwhelming evidence of our
> insignificance, it would barely tap the brakes on our rampaging
> sense of self-importance.  (Talk about Inflation Theories!)
>

heh

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,
but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux

> Our humility needs *all* the help it can get.  So, thanks,
> God, for sticking us here in the boonies.  And in such a pretty
> corner of them.

Actually recent Drake's Equation factors (the Earth/Moon conditions) have
yielded the result of nothing like humans, or even baboons, in the nearest
22 average-sized spiral galaxies from our own.  We should remain humble,
yes, but we should be much more grateful for Earth's favorable long-stable
conditions!  And this type of gratitude only comes about through
scientific discovery and education..

>  (Anybody been catching the auroras the last
> few weeks?  Solar max won't roll around again for eleven more
> years, so grab a lawn chair and watch 'em while you can.)
>
> > It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
> > bangs. <grin>
>
> So you'd prefer "Little Pop"? Or, with no apologies to Eliot,
> "This is the way the world begins, not with a bang but a whimper?"

> We just might be approaching an all-bets-are-off time in physics.
> These recent observations demonstrating the acceleration of the
> universe could be our turn of the century's equivalent for the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment at the last century's turn.  The Big
> Bang itself continues to look solid -- so far -- but you gotta
> wonder...

Yes, this new twist which has popped up from the study of distant
supernova observations is fascinating.  The assumption was made that the
brightness of specific types of supernovae are reliably determinable, even
across the eons.  The expansion rate seems not to have been constant, but
has been accelerating over timespans of billions of years.   :O

Maybe our universe is trying to speed up its maturation rate so that it
can begin reproducing. <grin>  As universes grow old and very expanded,
becoming in the process comprised of regions of extremely inflated
'inflaton' field, which in turn, can not any longer forestall the
emergence of new baby universes.  This Chaotic Inflationary Theory says
that this universe will get very 'icy' (apologies to R. Frost) 10^100
years from now, but its vacuum substrate, under those extremely inflated
conditions, is currently speculated to be THE very source of new baby
universes!  Maybe this acceleration will 'accelerate' this larger process,
in our larger Multiverse. <grinning>

Theological ramifications will be troubling for some, because baby
universes emerging 'naturally' from their extremely old and inflated
(overstretched) parent universes eliminates another task for any First
Cause entity.  Also, nothing can stop this process, it will never end.
And there never was a time without or 'before' universes, not only because
universes create their own time (or the illusion we name time),  -they
should be thought of as completely closed and self-referential, but also
because there never was a time without universes.  You might think that
this sounds redundant, circular and self-contingent, and you'd be right,
but this is one of the paradoxes of Chaotic Inflation.

Thanks Royce,
Geron

In article <3AD490C7.C20EB33F@earthlink.net>, figvine@earthlink.net wrote:

> geron wrote:
> >
> > Fundamentalists, and most all other human-concocted theologies, assume
> > that the wider universe has something to do with humans.  This is patently
> > absurd!  Science has discovered that we live in the second to the last
> > group of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster.  What a come down from the
> > center of things! and our Local Group is one of the smallest and least
> > significant galactic groups which we can detect.  Of all the places in the
> > universe we could have expected to find ourselves, this grouping is paltry
> > and a way out in the boonies!
>
> Sounds to me like the God who designed the universe and placed
> mankind out here in the boonies knew us very well.  He knew that,
> even when presented with this overwhelming evidence of our
> insignificance, it would barely tap the brakes on our rampaging
> sense of self-importance.  (Talk about Inflation Theories!)
>

heh

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,
but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux

> Our humility needs *all* the help it can get.  So, thanks,
> God, for sticking us here in the boonies.  And in such a pretty
> corner of them.

Actually recent Drake's Equation factors (the Earth/Moon conditions) have
yielded the result of nothing like humans, or even baboons, in the nearest
22 average-sized spiral galaxies from our own.  We should remain humble,
yes, but we should be much more grateful for Earth's favorable long-stable
conditions!  And this type of gratitude only comes about through
scientific discovery and education..

>  (Anybody been catching the auroras the last
> few weeks?  Solar max won't roll around again for eleven more
> years, so grab a lawn chair and watch 'em while you can.)
>
> > It's evident that there was no Big Bang, but merely the tiniest of little
> > bangs. <grin>
>
> So you'd prefer "Little Pop"? Or, with no apologies to Eliot,
> "This is the way the world begins, not with a bang but a whimper?"

> We just might be approaching an all-bets-are-off time in physics.
> These recent observations demonstrating the acceleration of the
> universe could be our turn of the century's equivalent for the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment at the last century's turn.  The Big
> Bang itself continues to look solid -- so far -- but you gotta
> wonder...

Yes, this new twist which has popped up from the study of distant
supernova observations is fascinating.  The assumption was made that the
brightness of specific types of supernovae are reliably determinable, even
across the eons.  The expansion rate seems not to have been constant, but
has been accelerating over timespans of billions of years.   :O

Maybe our universe is trying to speed up its maturation rate so that it
can begin reproducing. <grin>  As universes grow old and very expanded,
they become in the process comprised of regions of extremely inflated
'inflaton' field, which in turn, can not any longer forestall the
emergence of new baby universes.  This Chaotic Inflationary Theory says
that this universe will get very 'icy' (apologies to R. Frost) 10^100
years from now, but its vacuum substrate, under those extremely inflated
conditions, is currently speculated to be THE very source of new baby
universes!  Maybe this acceleration will 'accelerate' this larger process,
in our larger Multiverse. <grinning>

Theological ramifications will be troubling for some, because baby
universes emerging 'naturally' from their extremely old and inflated
(overstretched) parent universes eliminates another task for any First
Cause entity.  Also, nothing can stop this process, it will never end.
And there never was a time without or 'before' universes, not only because
universes create their own time (or the illusion we name time),  -they
should be thought of as completely closed and self-referential, but also
because there never was a time without universes.  You might think that
this sounds redundant, circular and self-contingent, and you'd be right,
but this is one of the paradoxes of Chaotic Inflation.

Thanks Royce,
Geron

Talking with people like you is a waste of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honus" <honus1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AD4DE28.C9F1827A@earthlink.net...
> Fluffy Critter wrote:
> >
> > "Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AD4994A.1746694B@earthlink.net...
> > > Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
> > > you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
> > > Or maybe an Incomplete.
> >
> > Whatever you say there, ask me if I care what you think.  Big Bang
theory,
> > and evolution is still full of bs, just like you.
>
> I'm curious. Are you some sort of theist? Which flavor?
>
> > > Fluffy Critter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> > > > Creationism.  However,
> > > > Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian
descent
>
> Do you know the difference between the two?
>
>  is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds
> > who
> > > > usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.
>
> Ah...like so many of the people sitting in pews on Sunday.
>
>
> > > The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
> > > believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke.
> >
> > So what.  Its still treated as such, as in how much you tell me I dont
> > understand it.  What you fail miserably to realize that I do understand
it,
> > I just dont agree with it.
>
> Nearly every sentence out of your mouth screams that you DON'T
> understand it.
>
> > The basic
> > > theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
> > > changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
> > > and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
> > > has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)
> >
> > Yadda, yadda, yadda, still is full of gaping holes.
>
> Name some.
>
> > > > Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.
>
> You deride the Big Bang, but claim that the universe began? And it's
> infinite in dimensions? And it began "on" a spiral?
>
> > > Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
> > > aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")
> >
> > It wasnt an explosion.....hmmmmmmmmm....where did  my english teacher go
> > wrong, big bang.....means not a big bang......hehehe... something tells
me
> > your grasping at straws.  Ok, lets rename the same nonsense, big
> > expansion....chuckle.  Pardon while I get the air freshener, there seems
to
> > be alot of bullshit in the air these days.
>
> And it's all coming from you. The term Big Bang was a derisive label
> coined by Fred Hoyle, a proponent (to say the least) of the Steady State
> model. The label was kept, partly (so I've heard) as a dig against Hoyle
> who deserves all of the digs that come his way.
>
>
> > We always knew that the universe was infinite, and thus goes on forever,
and
> > ever, and ever.  What tok you "scientists" so long to take your head out
of
> > the sand, or should that be your asses?
>
> It goes on forever, yet it had a beginning?
>
> > You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
> > > scientific paradigm.
> >
> > Your wrong.  The big bang originally described a universe, where no new
> > matter came into existence.  The first law of thermodynamics says,
matter
> > cannot be created or destroyed.  Is that no taught anymore? Are you
saying
> > it never was taught?  You get an F for science history.
>
> And you get an F for thinking that the laws of physics applied to the
> universe in its earliest stages. Put simply, the laws were created
> simultaneously with the universe; they didn't exist beforehand. That's
> what comes of thinking that the Big Bang was an explosion.
>
> On top of that, Fred Hoyle's original steady state model demanded the
> creation of new matter.
>
> > Actually your wrong again, photons do loose energy and come to be called
> > "tired light" plus photons become gravitationally trapped, in effect
> > transforming into atoms.  Man the bullshit meter is going off the scale,
> > when reading your response.  Pfffffff, pffffffff...(spraying more air
> > freshener in here)
>
> The photons lose energy because they've collided with matter. If they
> haven't had any such collisions, they're not "tired". I imagine that
> next you're going to start telling us how full of crap Einstein was.
>
> I'm not as gracious as Royce. I give you a flat-out F all the way
> around. I'll up that to a D if you start using spelling and grammar
> checkers; presentation counts. ;)
>
> --
>
> We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
> believed in.
> Some of us just go one god further.
>
>               Richard Dawkins

Your still full of shit.  Your "superior" understanding is all in your head.
Talking with people like you is a waste of time.  I've got better things to
do than discuss bs with cave-dwellers.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AD51A27.387D76B9@earthlink.net...
> Fluffy Critter wrote:
> >
> > Your full of shit.  I am not trying to point out every little damn
detail
> > about steady state theory, big bang crap, or Darwinian evolutionary
theory.
>
> No? Well over half your post consisted of details about (your
> misunderstandings of) the big bang and Darwinian evolutionary theory.
> If you weren't trying to point out details, why were you trying
> (and failing) to do so?
>
> > So you can take your insults to the ceramic bowl where they belong.
> > When a theory is full of shit, like you, there is no need to anyways.
>
> What insults?  All I did was to point out that you are ignorant
> about certain topics.  That's hardly a character flaw.  It isn't
> even necessarily a reflection on your intelligence.
>
> > > Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
> > > sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
> > > an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
> > > But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
> > > issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
> > > actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
> > > descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
> > > of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."

In article <FglB6.330$s02.34293@news0.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
<cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>    Destroying is easy, but not improving
> "Ralph Krumdieck" <ralphkru@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote in message
> news:3ad5bd89.1310844@news2.uoregon.edu...
> > "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >
> > +   Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong, science
> see's
> > +for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small,
> > and
> > +then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then
> they
> > +assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I prefer
> > to
> > +believe that the first species died out and God created a better one
> thats
> > +more adapted for the conditions of the time.  Science has already proved
> > +that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and still
> > +there born with a full tail, only by changing the D.N.A. can anything
> > change
> > +and only God could have done that. God bless
> > +
> > Go find yourself a willing doctor or dentist and let them x-ray your
> > gonads for an hour or so every day for a month.  I can pretty much
> > guarantee you that you will have accomplished what you just said
> > only God can do.  I'd advise against having any kids, though, even
> > if, by some miracle, you're still fertile.
> > ralph

Clarence,
Improvements is the wrong word, because a horse species that is bigger
might not have been a better survivor in its specific environment.  Larger
size vs food availability and food quality is always a trade off.  Horse
size increased over millions of years because of selection by predators
and temperature exposure (extremes of heat and cold).  I assume that the
size of horses has now reached an equilibrium between advantages and
disadvantages, just like the characteristics of every other organism, but
it's obviously not as simple as Special Creation.  <grin>

Geron

"clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

+   Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong, science see's
+for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small,
and
+then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then they
+assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I prefer
to
+believe that the first species died out and God created a better one thats
+more adapted for the conditions of the time.  Science has already proved
+that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and still
+there born with a full tail, only by changing the D.N.A. can anything
change
+and only God could have done that. God bless
+
Go find yourself a willing doctor or dentist and let them x-ray your
gonads for an hour or so every day for a month.  I can pretty much
guarantee you that you will have accomplished what you just said
only God can do.  I'd advise against having any kids, though, even
if, by some miracle, you're still fertile.
ralph

"Fluffy Critter" <genius_art@hotmail.com> wrote in 
<us%A6.552275$f36.16661088@news20.bellglobal.com>:

>It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
>Creationism.  However,
>Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent of
>the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds who
>usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.  If it

I think you have this backwards.  Those who most loudly criticize the 
sciences are often those most prone to believing what someone in authority 
tells them.  Even the so-called scientists who forswear science when it 
conflicts with their dogma are, in fact, accepting an "authority" of 
surprisingly recent origin over the actual evidence of God's own creation.

To put it bluntly, making the above claim without a shred of real evidence to 
support it is FALSE WITNESS as prohibited by God. (And since your claim 
includes at least some fellow believers, it stands you ountside the communion 
until you repent the sin).  Hate to be blunt, but that's the facts, Fluffy.

>sounds too good to be true, it probably isnt.  Same can be said of the Big
>Bust er...Big Bang. What a bunch of nonsense.  In fact the big bang model
>has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
>marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its always
>then
>promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.  Science is the
>new religion these days.

More baseless rhetoric.  While it is true that some atheists make science 
their substitute for religion, you seem to make a habit of maligning people 
you don't even know and not for good reasons but because of some emotional 
reaction you have.  Granted science's models change and undergo revision.  
That's a strength, not a weakness, in that they are corrected by reference to 
the actual creation itself rather than by reference to some writer's work 
that was wrong when it was written and will stay wrong forever.

(And I'm not referring to any part of the Bible, which was never intended as 
a treatise in science anyway; I'm referring to the works of its rather naive 
interpreters who have tried to turn it into one).

>Creationists who believe in either theory are in for a big surprise, because
>both are full of gross errors of
>which one doesnt have to be an astrophysicist to see through.  Our universe

Are you going to tell us exactly what these errors are and supply the 
physical evidence for your claims?

>began on a spiral, not from an
>explosion.  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
>again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more big crunch.

Apparently not, since you don't appear to actually understand general 
relativity enough to comment on it, never mind critique it.

>Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So big

No, entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is DEGRADING.  The 
expansion suggests that it's dissipating.  All entropy can tell us is that 
the energy in the universe is TENDING to become evenly distributed.  However 
it is a LONG way from being in that condition right now and will remain so as 
long as any of the billions of black holes still contain mass.  It will have 
stars as long as hydrogen exists and is not evenly distributed.

>bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of stars.

No, they revised their notion of the total mass of the universe (which is a 
critical number that determines whether it is a hyperellipsoid or a 
hyperhyperboloid in shape.  But those are big words you probably don't 
understand.  Not that this will stop you from spouting on.

>Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes into
>existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the big
>explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it was

Huh?  As far as I know, the theory still maintains that the mass of the 
universe arose in the first instants of creation.  Not that we can know what 
the universe was like before a certain very short time after it actually 
began (because the laws of general relativity do not apply to very small 
spaces).

>"updated" but sillily remained the same theory.  Then it was finally

"sillily?"  You don't even KNOW the theory.  How, then can you claim it is 
silly?

>understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or energy,
>for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion year
>old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
>existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
>blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they dont
>know how, and cant fathom why!!!!  So you see, people, science doesnt know

Uh, actually, I find it alarming that you think that electrons orbit within 
atoms and then have the gall to set yourself up above such minds as those of 
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

>everything, far from it.  They who believe solely in science, are just

But YOU don't know much of ANYTHING and have set out to demonstrate that to 
the rest of us, I see.

>hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,

YOU hate the Spirit.  We have already established above that you are not in a 
state of spiritual grace.  You may be a believer but you are a believer in a 
state of sin.

>without fear or judgement.  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct

It is not the Holy Spirit that is causing you to bear false witness.  And if 
you do not fear God, then you have no real contact with the Holy Spirit.  
Instead, you are venting your envy and hostility here for the world to see.

>the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt explain
>the origin of the species, because life can only repeat ONLY come from life.

This is an unproven assertion (aside from being contrary to holy writ).  The 
Bible says that man became a "living soul" (whatever that means) AFTER God 
made him out of ordinary materials, when God breathed the "breath of life" 
into him (again, whatever that means).  It is entirely clear, though, from 
both science AND the Bible that there was a time before any living organisms 
existed and that they then arose.  *I* believe they arose as part of God's 
plan; an atheist may get different mileage out of the same facts.  But the 
fact remains, life arose from non-living materials.  Even now, life comes 
from non-life in that we largely tend to eat dead things (personally I 
sometimes like crushing live baby alfalfas with my teeth--but tastes vary).  

The most primitive self-replicating things are molecules in the 100-200 atom 
size range that catalyze their own production, causing their concentration to 
increase in any solution that contains both the catalyst and enough 
"nutrients" to make more.  These are known to undergo mutation and natural 
selection in such solutions is a tautology.  And they are well within the 
range of random polymerizations of organics that, given what we see out there 
in the universe, are raining on the earth from time to time.

>Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two different things.  Place any

Yes they are.

>organism in a medium of its own waste, and you'll see how long that organism
>will adapt to entropy, or death.  Not very long.  That is part of biological
>laws.  Thats a basic law of biology as taught by biologists themselves.  Are
>they so out to lunch, that they teach as law one thing, and then completely
>contradict it in another.....all because they hate the Spirit.  TO believe

Whoa!  Who are you to claim that biologists hate the Spirit?  You, an 
apostate sinner, are in no position to judge people like this, either singly 
or collectively.  You CANNOT know what is in their hearts unless you can show 
where they actually made statements that reveal their feelings.  You can say 
DAWKINS hates the Spirit because he is an outspoken atheist with a clear 
anti-Christian agenda.  You CANNOT say such things about Theodosius 
Dobzhansky or Francisco Ayala, who did much of the 20th century's most 
important work on evolutionary genetics.  If you do, you are placing yourself 
right outside the Body of Christ because you're maligning members of that 
Body for no good reason.


>in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
>Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely discovered
>what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact, that you simply
>put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some "superior intellectual
>mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.

This is odd and vague.  Certainly the fact that the universe is old and that 
living organisms have evolved from one (or a small number) of original 
species is not a valid excuse for atheism.  But that does not give YOU a 
valid excuse for bearing false witness against honest science and the people 
who do it for an honest living.

No man knows the day or the hour of His coming.  Repent your sins before it 
is too late to do so.

>Enough said, if you still dont get it, well then, get a life.

See above.  Living in a state of sin is not a life.

-- 
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
   --me, 2000AD
   
   

"Fluffy Critter" <genius_art@hotmail.com> wrote in 
<OciB6.559060$f36.16783334@news20.bellglobal.com>:

>Your still full of shit.  Your "superior" understanding is all in your head.
>Talking with people like you is a waste of time.  I've got better things to
>do than discuss bs with cave-dwellers.

Apparently these "better things" would be running around patting yourself on 
the back for being such a sinner.  You DO carry on.  But you know, Jesus will 
probably rope you in, in the end.  When you actually realize that He CAN save 
you from your sins and stop wallowing in them.

But, if you are following someone who condones these sins and who purports to 
be a "pastor" of God's flock, you are living in a dangerous place 
(spiritually).

-- 
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
   --me, 2000AD
   
   

Your full of crap.  Science has brainwashed so many people today, it rivals
the power of religious nut cracks.  How that makes me a false witness is a
matter of your psychosis and for your psychiatrist.
And while your at, take your arrogant posts with you so he can get some
immediate insight into your black & white linear and one dimensional dogma.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns90817901876C6doldridgoceancoastal@154.11.89.178...
> "Fluffy Critter" <genius_art@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <us%A6.552275$f36.16661088@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>
> >It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> >Creationism.  However,
> >Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent
of
> >the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds who
> >usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.  If
it
>
> I think you have this backwards.  Those who most loudly criticize the
> sciences are often those most prone to believing what someone in authority
> tells them.  Even the so-called scientists who forswear science when it
> conflicts with their dogma are, in fact, accepting an "authority" of
> surprisingly recent origin over the actual evidence of God's own creation.
>
> To put it bluntly, making the above claim without a shred of real evidence
to
> support it is FALSE WITNESS as prohibited by God. (And since your claim
> includes at least some fellow believers, it stands you ountside the
communion
> until you repent the sin).  Hate to be blunt, but that's the facts,
Fluffy.
>
> >sounds too good to be true, it probably isnt.  Same can be said of the
Big
> >Bust er...Big Bang. What a bunch of nonsense.  In fact the big bang model
> >has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
> >marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its
always
> >then
> >promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.  Science is
the
> >new religion these days.
>
> More baseless rhetoric.  While it is true that some atheists make science
> their substitute for religion, you seem to make a habit of maligning
people
> you don't even know and not for good reasons but because of some emotional
> reaction you have.  Granted science's models change and undergo revision.
> That's a strength, not a weakness, in that they are corrected by reference
to
> the actual creation itself rather than by reference to some writer's work
> that was wrong when it was written and will stay wrong forever.
>
> (And I'm not referring to any part of the Bible, which was never intended
as
> a treatise in science anyway; I'm referring to the works of its rather
naive
> interpreters who have tried to turn it into one).
>
> >Creationists who believe in either theory are in for a big surprise,
because
> >both are full of gross errors of
> >which one doesnt have to be an astrophysicist to see through.  Our
universe
>
> Are you going to tell us exactly what these errors are and supply the
> physical evidence for your claims?
>
> >began on a spiral, not from an
> >explosion.  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
> >again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more big
crunch.
>
> Apparently not, since you don't appear to actually understand general
> relativity enough to comment on it, never mind critique it.
>
> >Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So big
>
> No, entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is DEGRADING.  The
> expansion suggests that it's dissipating.  All entropy can tell us is that
> the energy in the universe is TENDING to become evenly distributed.
However
> it is a LONG way from being in that condition right now and will remain so
as
> long as any of the billions of black holes still contain mass.  It will
have
> stars as long as hydrogen exists and is not evenly distributed.
>
> >bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of
stars.
>
> No, they revised their notion of the total mass of the universe (which is
a
> critical number that determines whether it is a hyperellipsoid or a
> hyperhyperboloid in shape.  But those are big words you probably don't
> understand.  Not that this will stop you from spouting on.
>
> >Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes
into
> >existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the big
> >explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it
was
>
> Huh?  As far as I know, the theory still maintains that the mass of the
> universe arose in the first instants of creation.  Not that we can know
what
> the universe was like before a certain very short time after it actually
> began (because the laws of general relativity do not apply to very small
> spaces).
>
> >"updated" but sillily remained the same theory.  Then it was finally
>
> "sillily?"  You don't even KNOW the theory.  How, then can you claim it is
> silly?
>
> >understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or
energy,
> >for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion year
> >old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
> >existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
> >blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they dont
> >know how, and cant fathom why!!!!  So you see, people, science doesnt
know
>
> Uh, actually, I find it alarming that you think that electrons orbit
within
> atoms and then have the gall to set yourself up above such minds as those
of
> Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.
>
> >everything, far from it.  They who believe solely in science, are just
>
> But YOU don't know much of ANYTHING and have set out to demonstrate that
to
> the rest of us, I see.
>
> >hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
>
> YOU hate the Spirit.  We have already established above that you are not
in a
> state of spiritual grace.  You may be a believer but you are a believer in
a
> state of sin.
>
> >without fear or judgement.  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
>
> It is not the Holy Spirit that is causing you to bear false witness.  And
if
> you do not fear God, then you have no real contact with the Holy Spirit.
> Instead, you are venting your envy and hostility here for the world to
see.
>
> >the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt
explain
> >the origin of the species, because life can only repeat ONLY come from
life.
>
> This is an unproven assertion (aside from being contrary to holy writ).
The
> Bible says that man became a "living soul" (whatever that means) AFTER God
> made him out of ordinary materials, when God breathed the "breath of life"
> into him (again, whatever that means).  It is entirely clear, though, from
> both science AND the Bible that there was a time before any living
organisms
> existed and that they then arose.  *I* believe they arose as part of God's
> plan; an atheist may get different mileage out of the same facts.  But the
> fact remains, life arose from non-living materials.  Even now, life comes
> from non-life in that we largely tend to eat dead things (personally I
> sometimes like crushing live baby alfalfas with my teeth--but tastes
vary).
>
> The most primitive self-replicating things are molecules in the 100-200
atom
> size range that catalyze their own production, causing their concentration
to
> increase in any solution that contains both the catalyst and enough
> "nutrients" to make more.  These are known to undergo mutation and natural
> selection in such solutions is a tautology.  And they are well within the
> range of random polymerizations of organics that, given what we see out
there
> in the universe, are raining on the earth from time to time.
>
> >Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two different things.  Place any
>
> Yes they are.
>
> >organism in a medium of its own waste, and you'll see how long that
organism
> >will adapt to entropy, or death.  Not very long.  That is part of
biological
> >laws.  Thats a basic law of biology as taught by biologists themselves.
Are
> >they so out to lunch, that they teach as law one thing, and then
completely
> >contradict it in another.....all because they hate the Spirit.  TO
believe
>
> Whoa!  Who are you to claim that biologists hate the Spirit?  You, an
> apostate sinner, are in no position to judge people like this, either
singly
> or collectively.  You CANNOT know what is in their hearts unless you can
show
> where they actually made statements that reveal their feelings.  You can
say
> DAWKINS hates the Spirit because he is an outspoken atheist with a clear
> anti-Christian agenda.  You CANNOT say such things about Theodosius
> Dobzhansky or Francisco Ayala, who did much of the 20th century's most
> important work on evolutionary genetics.  If you do, you are placing
yourself
> right outside the Body of Christ because you're maligning members of that
> Body for no good reason.
>
>
> >in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
> >Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely
discovered
> >what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact, that you
simply
> >put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some "superior intellectual
> >mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.
>
> This is odd and vague.  Certainly the fact that the universe is old and
that
> living organisms have evolved from one (or a small number) of original
> species is not a valid excuse for atheism.  But that does not give YOU a
> valid excuse for bearing false witness against honest science and the
people
> who do it for an honest living.
>
> No man knows the day or the hour of His coming.  Repent your sins before
it
> is too late to do so.
>
> >Enough said, if you still dont get it, well then, get a life.
>
> See above.  Living in a state of sin is not a life.
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge
> ICQ 1800667
>
============================================================================
=
> =================
> Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
>    --me, 2000AD
>
>

   Destroying is easy, but not improving
"Ralph Krumdieck" <ralphkru@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote in message
news:3ad5bd89.1310844@news2.uoregon.edu...
> "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> +   Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong, science
see's
> +for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small,
> and
> +then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then
they
> +assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I prefer
> to
> +believe that the first species died out and God created a better one
thats
> +more adapted for the conditions of the time.  Science has already proved
> +that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and still
> +there born with a full tail, only by changing the D.N.A. can anything
> change
> +and only God could have done that. God bless
> +
> Go find yourself a willing doctor or dentist and let them x-ray your
> gonads for an hour or so every day for a month.  I can pretty much
> guarantee you that you will have accomplished what you just said
> only God can do.  I'd advise against having any kids, though, even
> if, by some miracle, you're still fertile.
> ralph

clarence wrote:
>
>    Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong,


Oh, don't worry on -that- score! <GBG>

> science see's
> for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small, and
> then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then they
> assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I prefer to

That's -way- over simplified; a lot more is taken into account. Early
horses don't look like horses, becaue they -weren't- horses. So why are
they included in the evolution of the horse? Because of the fine-grained
evidence, which covers much more than just size, and more than just the
morphology of the animals themselves. We haven't just found "bigger than
the ones before" types of fossils. We've found many of the transitionals
in between. (I'll give you a URL below.) But even if that were the case,
you'd have to admit that it'd look pretty funny and I'd wonder what God
was up to. Let's say that every two million years in the strata we found
successively larger equines. And let's say that the same sort of thing
happened with every other fossil and extant species that we've examined.
Let's say that the deeper we dug, we founnd skeletons that progressively
change from fully human to fully ape by small degrees. Wouldn't you
wonder just what was God thinking when he did this? If evolution didn't
happen and God did as you propose, that is a constant series of new
creation, then he's gone out of his way to make it look like evolution
-did- happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html

> believe that the first species died out and God created a better one thats
> more adapted for the conditions of the time.

You don't believe that God built in the ability for species to change
with the environment? The so-called "micro-evolution" of the
creationists, which by the way has no limiting mechanism to prevent it
from becoming "macro-evolution".

> Science has already proved
> that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and still
> there born with a full tail,

Correct. That was one of the ways that the Lamarckian theory of
evolution was disproven. Lamarck proposed heritable characteristics, but
it doesn't work; the other examples commonly used are our children don't
have our scars, and the blacksmith's children don't have his arm
muscles. You have to earn those yourself. However, there's been no such
disproof for Darwinian evolution (natural selection). On the contrary,
the discoveries of genetics strengthen it. This illustrates nicely what
I originally said. The fact of evolution is one thing, and the theory is
another. Lamarckism is a perfect example of an evolutionary theory (that
predated Darwin, BTW) but was discarded because it didn't fit the
evidence. And so much for the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable;
it's falsifiable at many different levels, whether it's Lamarckian,
Darwinian or anything else. Except directed by God, that is.
> only by changing the D.N.A. can anything change
> and only God could have done that. God bless

No, that's not true. DNA mutates just fine without the help of anyone.
You yourself have duplication errors in your DNA. Did God put those
there? Why? If you believe that God directs evolution, that would
explain why He allowed boo-boos to creep into your DNA; he's got plans
for those changes later on. But if you believe that God merely makes
creatures suited for one environment then kills them off and starts anew
when the environment changes then there's no reason for Him to change
your DNA at all. I don't think that you'll find too many people on
either side of the fence who believe that only God changes DNA, and then
only intentionally. If that were true, then he inflicted every genetic
disorder there is. ;) I know people who believe that, but not me.
Mutations (even beneficial ones) happen. That's all there is to it.


--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

clarence wrote:
>
>    Destroying is easy, but not improving

Still, it happens.

"The Mystery Village With No Heart Disease"

http://komotv.com/news/nindexaction.asp?idX16

Bear in mind that the while the word mutant has negative connotations to
us, it's real meaning doesn't. Thank 1950's sci-fi for that. ;)

> > Go find yourself a willing doctor or dentist and let them x-ray your
> > gonads for an hour or so every day for a month.  I can pretty much
> > guarantee you that you will have accomplished what you just said
> > only God can do.  I'd advise against having any kids, though, even
> > if, by some miracle, you're still fertile.
> > ralph


--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> "Fluffy Critter" <genius_art@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <OciB6.559060$f36.16783334@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>
> >Your still full of shit.  Your "superior" understanding is all in your head.
> >Talking with people like you is a waste of time.  I've got better things to
> >do than discuss bs with cave-dwellers.
>
> Apparently these "better things" would be running around patting yourself on
> the back for being such a sinner.  You DO carry on.  But you know, Jesus will
> probably rope you in, in the end.  When you actually realize that He CAN save
> you from your sins and stop wallowing in them.
>
> But, if you are following someone who condones these sins and who purports to
> be a "pastor" of God's flock, you are living in a dangerous place
> (spiritually).

Fluffy claims to be a preacher? What a piece of...work.


--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

Fluffy Critter wrote:
>
> Talking with people like you is a waste of time.

Does that mean that you're here on Usenet looking for people like
yourself? You're in the wrong newsgroup. I could suggest several others
which would by much more appropriate and productive.

By the way...you're still wrong about everything that you said. ;)

--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

Fluffy Critter wrote:
>
> Your still full of shit.  Your "superior" understanding is all in your head.
> Talking with people like you is a waste of time.  I've got better things to
> do than discuss bs with cave-dwellers.

I think the only thing fluffy about you is the inside of your skull. Why
are you the way you are? We've shown what you've said to be in error; if
you can't concede that, then why don't you try to offer some support for
your assertions, no matter how meager that support might be? You don't
even try, Fluffy.


--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:58:22 -0400, "Aaron Potts" <gh@amexol.net>
wrote:

...

>> And a simpler question: How can a god creating something as infinitely
>> vast as the multi/universe be capable of understanding and interacting
>> with human beings? How can one describe such a power in terms of a
>> personality with desires, an intilligence and a will?
>
>Because God is an infinite God: He has the purest existence and infinite
>knowledge. He is capable of knowing and understanding all things. He can
>understand us because he can understand his own creations; he can interact
>with us because he can shape the universe according to his will. The power
>is not God; the power is one element of God, "concentrated," if you will, in
>the Creator facet of the Trinity, God the Father.

I see. I have some trouble with understanding how this can apply to
the god of the old testament. Given the above, a lot of his actions
are very irrational?

>> >>However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
>> >> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
>> >> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>>
>> Trouble with this approach is that most of the bible must become
>> subject to some horribly radical reinterpretation. How do you
>> compare/equal the God of Abraham with the thing that created the
>> horsehead nebula?
>
>Easily. As God created the cosmos and a home for his intelligent creations
>(of whom we are only one species), he created humanity. This is one of the
>fundamental mysteries of Christianity: how someone as big as God could
>associate with people as small as we are, and care enough about us to die on
>the cross and chain the forces of evil.

But some of these mysteries should be left unanswered. Like: Why allow
his creation to get so horribly out of control in the first place? Why
create evil and suffering with no method or mechanism of limiting it
to reasonable levels?

...

Anders
...

"Fluffy Critter" <genius_art@hotmail.com> wrote in 
<WtjB6.559489$f36.16789236@news20.bellglobal.com>:

>Your full of crap.  Science has brainwashed so many people today, it rivals

I see you are up to your usual intellectual standards.

>the power of religious nut cracks.  How that makes me a false witness is a
>matter of your psychosis and for your psychiatrist.

You are bearing false witness by claiming to know things abou people that you 
simply cannot know and making charges about their moral and spiritual states 
that are untrue.

>And while your at, take your arrogant posts with you so he can get some
>immediate insight into your black & white linear and one dimensional dogma.

OK...I've done my job.  The rest is between you and God, but until you repent 
and I hear about it, I will consider you NOT to be a member in good standing 
of the Body of Christ.  Too bad.

And don't think I am doing this lightly.  I am just getting tired of seeing 
all this blasphemy and sin around and am called by God to correct it.  If you 
don't like the message, I can understand why you might be angry with the 
messenger, but the message isn't mine.  It's from the God you claim to be 
speaking for.  I repeat.  THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.  This was graven 
on the stone tablets Moses brought down from the mountains and has not ever 
been repealed.  Any denominations that tell you that you get a plenary 
indulgence for it with the baptism certificate are heresies.  Got that?

As for arrogance, you exemplify it totally.  The arrogance you think you 
sense in me is your own being challenged by REAL authority.

Don't bother to reply unless you are ready to discuss your repentance...

I have enough trouble in my life counselling sinners who actually WANT to do 
something about their lives.

-- 
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
   --me, 2000AD
   
   

"clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

+   Destroying is easy, but not improving

+"Ralph Krumdieck" <ralphkru@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote in message
+news:3ad5bd89.1310844@news2.uoregon.edu...
+> "clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
+>
+> +   Honus:  In your way of thinking, correct me if I'm wrong, science
+see's
+> +for example a horse that's let's say fifty million years old was small,
+> and
+> +then they find one that's forty million years old and is bigger, then
+they
+> +assume it evoloved bigger, that's not a fact it's an assumption, I
prefer
+> to
+> +believe that the first species died out and God created a better one
+thats
+> +more adapted for the conditions of the time.  Science has already
proved
+> +that you can cut the tails off mices for a hundred generations and
still
+> +there born with a full tail, only by changing the D.N.A. can anything
+> change
+> +and only God could have done that. God bless
+> +
+> Go find yourself a willing doctor or dentist and let them x-ray your
+> gonads for an hour or so every day for a month.  I can pretty much
+> guarantee you that you will have accomplished what you just said
+> only God can do.  I'd advise against having any kids, though, even
+> if, by some miracle, you're still fertile.
+> ralph
+
"clarence" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

+   Destroying is easy, but not improving

Replying at the bottom makes it easier to follow the flow of the
discussion.  I agree.  Destroying is easy.  But I was responding
to your statement:

+> +only changing the D.N.A. can anything change
+> +and only God could have done that.

Obviously God is not the only one who can change the DNA.
On what grounds do you deny that mutations cannot
produce beneficial change?  From an evolutionary
viewpoint, "improvement" only means the organism is
better adapted to its environment.  The organism itself
may see the change as a step backwards.
ralph

clarence <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
<fcaB6.5865$Kd5.658196@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> Nygard"  In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the
Word
> was God, the Word of God is perfect, but man is not perfect and not all
man
> understand it, it requires much study and prayer.
>    For instance in Gen.2:21, the Bible say's that God took a rib from
adam
> to creat eve, but the Scriptures say that he took a curve from Adam, I am
> not a scientice but I know this has to do with the D.N.A. Man is just
> begining to understand what was written thousands of years ago. God bless

This is a perfect example of the babble being used  to justify/prove
anything that anyone wants it to. Mythology is very mallable, isn't it?
DNA my ass, you dolt.
    RJM

   Brakman: Your knowledge of the Scriptures seem to be limited, everyone is
free to choose whatever they want to believe, I was not trying to prove
anything to you, just quoting Scripture, believe what you like. God bless

"brakman" <brakman@citnet.com> wrote in message
news:01c0c475$d8a53fa0$bc07edd0@default...
>
>
> clarence <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
> <fcaB6.5865$Kd5.658196@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> > Nygard"  In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the
> Word
> > was God, the Word of God is perfect, but man is not perfect and not all
> man
> > understand it, it requires much study and prayer.
> >    For instance in Gen.2:21, the Bible say's that God took a rib from
> adam
> > to creat eve, but the Scriptures say that he took a curve from Adam, I
am
> > not a scientice but I know this has to do with the D.N.A. Man is just
> > begining to understand what was written thousands of years ago. God
bless
>
> This is a perfect example of the babble being used  to justify/prove
> anything that anyone wants it to. Mythology is very mallable, isn't it?
> DNA my ass, you dolt.
>     RJM
>

In article <cn9C6.419$Gv5.55669@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
<cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>    Brakman: Your knowledge of the Scriptures seem to be limited, everyone is
> free to choose whatever they want to believe, I was not trying to prove
> anything to you, just quoting Scripture, believe what you like. God bless

God will surely condemn people who occupy themselves with fostering and
knowingly spreading ignorance about his world, but maybe you don't know
any better, clarence?

Someday we'll all find out if there are any gods or a devils, and what it
(they) thinks about our chosen arrogances.

Your knowledge of the real world seems to be limited, - everyone is free
to choose whatever they want to believe... heh..  Atheists and others
here, are merely trying to warn Christians that their theology which
started out as Paulism and took many centuries to develop, has absolutely
no chance of being a true picture of this universe or the way it works.
But everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe, right?..

Other mainline world theologies, in their liberal forms, at least have a
possibility of being true and reliable, but the contradictory events and
the outrageous claims of the Christian myth do not.

As a 'fear and guilt' device for manipulating and controlling the
pre-scientific masses in the dark ages it was tailor-made!, but as a
modern person, think about how it's stunted your growth, clarence..

Geron

> "brakman" <brakman@citnet.com> wrote in message
> news:01c0c475$d8a53fa0$bc07edd0@default...
> >
> >
> > clarence <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
> > <fcaB6.5865$Kd5.658196@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> > > Nygard"  In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the
> > Word
> > > was God, the Word of God is perfect, but man is not perfect and not all
> > man
> > > understand it, it requires much study and prayer.
> > >    For instance in Gen.2:21, the Bible say's that God took a rib from
> > adam
> > > to creat eve, but the Scriptures say that he took a curve from Adam, I
> am
> > > not a scientice but I know this has to do with the D.N.A. Man is just
> > > begining to understand what was written thousands of years ago. God
> bless
> >
> > This is a perfect example of the babble being used  to justify/prove
> > anything that anyone wants it to. Mythology is very mallable, isn't it?
> > DNA my ass, you dolt.
> >     RJM
> >

John,
How can you believe in Jesus and say the account of creation recorded in
the book of Genesis is flawed?  God created man and all that is to glorify
Himself. He created this universe to show us His awesome power and for our
enjoyment.  He gave us the free will to worship Him or to disobey Him.
Even though He knew it would cost His dearly beloved son Jesus to give us
this choice, He created us anyway.   Now this is one of God's ultimate
displays of  unconditional Love to you and to me.  Genesis also records
how man fell from grace which accounts for the present day world which is
full of sin and adversity to God. The old testament also tells us God's
plan to reconcile us back unto Him through the life, death and
resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  This again is one of
God's ultimate displays of unconditional Love to you and to me.  You
should not be telling people that the Bible has flaws.  This only makes
them doubt in God's promises and makes them loose hope in a new heavan and
a new earth where God will wipe away every tear and there will be no more
pain.

In Christ,
Dave

"John D. Callahan" wrote:

> God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
>
> Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
>
> But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
>
> http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)

Dave Tremont wrote:
>
> John,
> How can you believe in Jesus and say the account of creation recorded in
> the book of Genesis is flawed?

He didn't say flawed. If anything, he implied that it was allegorical.
What are you so afraid of? God's creation speaks to us every bit as much
as the Bible. If the earth is in conflict with the Bible, something is
wrong...either your interpretation of the Bible and what it means, or
your interpretation of what the evidence of the earth says. There's
literally countless tons of evidence that support the latter views.
Sticking to a literal Bible is going to make you nothing more than a
pathetic anachronism. Knock yourself out.

Go to this URL, and read up a little on the subject.

http://www.reasons.org/

This is the page that you really ought to read...it has their Statement
of Faith. After you're done, if you still don't agree with them, take it
up with them. Try telling the creation scientist why he's full of crap.
Good luck. ;)

http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.html

> God created man and all that is to glorify
> Himself.

That's pretty pathetic, if you actually stop and think about it. A
creature like God, with that sort of ego. Tsk, tsk.


> He gave us the free will to worship Him or to disobey Him.


> Even though He knew it would cost His dearly beloved son Jesus to give us
> this choice, He created us anyway.

Utter nonsense. God lost NOTHING, and the great "sacrifice" that Jesus
made would have been made by damned near anyone who's ever stepped foot
on this planet if they'd known the same things that Jesus knew; namely,
his death wouldn't be permanent. He'd be at the right hand of God
shortly, and He'd give every single soul that ever lived the opportunity
to live in bliss forever. Hell, I'd go for that even if the proposition
had a 50-50 chance of being absolutely true or utterly false. And anyone
who wouldn't do what Jesus did is a despicable turd. Would -you- do it?
Of course you would. I'm not impressed. If there's anyone reading this
that -wouldn't- do what Jesus did, knowing what Jesus knew, I'd like to
hear from them. (No trolls, please.)

> Now this is one of God's ultimate
> displays of  unconditional Love to you and to me.

Poop. Unconditional my butt. It's the ultimate conditional deal. It'd be
a lot more unconditional if we had a choice between Heaven, or a Hell in
proportion to our sins...followed either by Heaven or oblivion.

> Genesis also records
> how man fell from grace which accounts for the present day world which is
> full of sin and adversity to God.

It's a lovely story. A little on the silly side, what with talking
snakes, sword-wielding angels and trees that'll kill you that day if you
eat from them, even though that never happened, but still lovely.

> The old testament also tells us God's
> plan to reconcile us back unto Him through the life, death and
> resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It also tells us that snakes and donkeys speak on occasion, that all of
the diversity in the world came from two people*, and that the world was
buried under water for a year.

* Make that one person, since Eve was Adams' clone.

> This again is one of
> God's ultimate displays of unconditional Love to you and to me.  You
> should not be telling people that the Bible has flaws.

Ooh, don't dare think for yourself, and if you do don't speak those
thoughts aloud. YOU should not be telling other people when they can
speak, and what they can speak of, Grand Inquisitor.

>  This only makes
> them doubt in God's promises and makes them loose hope in a new heavan and
> a new earth where God will wipe away every tear and there will be no more
> pain.

Yeah...the vast majority of people that most of us have ever known will
be roasting in an unlimited hell for their limited sins, and no one is
going to feel any pain. One wonders then what tears there will be for
God to wipe away.

Personally, while I don't agree with his obvious theism his post was
more than reasonable. And you're going to have your hands full if you
insist on an inerrant Bible.

> > God created the universe with laws (gravity, time, etc.) by which it
> > operates; we are able to understand these laws and make discoveries
> > about past and future events and phenomena, including evolution.
> > Evolution is simply a scientific understanding of our origins. It does
> > not make God unnecessary. However, it may mean we need to reevaluate
> > Him and our place in the universe. Evolution may imply that the
> > universe is bigger and more complex than we at first imagined.
> >
> > Many Christians, unfortunately, are reluctant to accept modern
> > science.  Creationists, rather than accepting the ever increasing
> > mountain of evidence validating evolution, have developed a new
> > tactic: in addition to their religious and creation "science" premise,
> > they now spin complex and sophisticated scientific arguments debunking
> > evolution ("Intelligent Design Theory"). The Kansas Board of
> > Education's 1999 decision removing evolution from their curriculum was
> > a short-lived victory for such a strategy.
> >
> > But is it possible to be a Christian and fully accept modern science
> > (including biological evolution and the Big Bang), and a valuable, yet
> > non-perfect Bible? A Web site which addresses these issues -- and has
> > a pretty good links page to related sites -- is
> >
> > http://www.faithreason.org (Faith & Reason Ministries)


--

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.

		              Richard Dawkins

In article <3ADD09F3.F953DEC3@home.com>, Dave Tremont <dmtremont@home.com>
wrote:

> John,
> How can you believe in Jesus and say the account of creation recorded in
> the book of Genesis is flawed?

The explanation in Genesis of how our present world has reached its
complex state was the result of an ongoing guess (based solely upon
observations) by religious thinkers from at least two religious traditions
of the time.  Can you extract what basic religious points they were trying
to establish and support for their readers with this account?

> God created man and all that is to glorify
> Himself. He created this universe to show us His awesome power and for our
> enjoyment.

Either this god resides only in the imagination of 'believers' like you,
or you're speaking metaphorically, because there's no evidence that a god
or devil created anything.  We're learning everyday what happened during
the last 13 billion years and none of it involves supernatural entities.
It would have made huge headlines, Dave!

> He gave us the free will to worship Him or to disobey Him.
> Even though He knew it would cost His dearly beloved son Jesus to give us
> this choice, He created us anyway.   Now this is one of God's ultimate
> displays of  unconditional Love to you and to me.

That's the outrageous view the Church has long used to gather converts.
If there was just one god of unconditional love somewhere there wouldn't
be starving children dying horrible deaths every day!  Either your god
doesn't care, it's powerless to do anything to help the children, it's
heartlessly and unfairly using the children to attempt to 'teach' us
something, or it's just an imaginary concept.

> Genesis also records
> how man fell from grace which accounts for the present day world which is
> full of sin and adversity to God.

'Also good for scaring up potential converts...

> The old testament also tells us God's
> plan to reconcile us back unto Him through the life, death and
> resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The O.T. doesn't talk about Jesus at all.  Ask the Jews, they wrote it.

> This again is one of
> God's ultimate displays of unconditional Love to you and to me.

Offing his son so that his 'pets' will have more reverence for him?  Have
you ever really thought about how absurd Christology is?

> You
> should not be telling people that the Bible has flaws.  This only makes
> them doubt in God's promises and makes them loose hope in a new heavan and
> a new earth where God will wipe away every tear and there will be no more
> pain.

The contradictory and outrageous claims of you modern Jesus worshippers
have no possibility of being true.  You ought to revert back to Jesus'
original message about the coming kingdom of God.  At least this hope has
a possibility of partially coming to fruition, in his name.

Geron

> In Christ,
> Dave

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:54:47 GMT, olavknBR�GLEBR�GLEBR�GLE@online.no
(Nygaard) wrote:

>But some of these mysteries should be left unanswered.

That should be "...should _not_ be left..."

(Goes crimson)

Anders
...

  Geron:  You are right, God will condemn people who spread and say they
know the Gospel and do not, as for me I condemn no man, I just teach the
truth to those who are interested and only to them, if your not interested
in the Gospel that's your choice, but why are you reading things that you
don't believe in?  Speak for your self, someday you will know there is a
God, as for me I already know there is.
     Christianity started thirteen thousand years ago when God said let us
make man flesh in our image, that was after the overthrow of satan. God
bless

"geron" <geron@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:geron-1604010844540001@lc0479.zianet.com...
> In article <cn9C6.419$Gv5.55669@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
> <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >    Brakman: Your knowledge of the Scriptures seem to be limited,
everyone is
> > free to choose whatever they want to believe, I was not trying to prove
> > anything to you, just quoting Scripture, believe what you like. God
bless
>
> God will surely condemn people who occupy themselves with fostering and
> knowingly spreading ignorance about his world, but maybe you don't know
> any better, clarence?
>
> Someday we'll all find out if there are any gods or a devils, and what it
> (they) thinks about our chosen arrogances.
>
> Your knowledge of the real world seems to be limited, - everyone is free
> to choose whatever they want to believe... heh..  Atheists and others
> here, are merely trying to warn Christians that their theology which
> started out as Paulism and took many centuries to develop, has absolutely
> no chance of being a true picture of this universe or the way it works.
> But everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe, right?..
>
> Other mainline world theologies, in their liberal forms, at least have a
> possibility of being true and reliable, but the contradictory events and
> the outrageous claims of the Christian myth do not.
>
> As a 'fear and guilt' device for manipulating and controlling the
> pre-scientific masses in the dark ages it was tailor-made!, but as a
> modern person, think about how it's stunted your growth, clarence..
>
> Geron
>
> > "brakman" <brakman@citnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:01c0c475$d8a53fa0$bc07edd0@default...
> > >
> > >
> > > clarence <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
> > > <fcaB6.5865$Kd5.658196@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> > > > Nygard"  In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and
the
> > > Word
> > > > was God, the Word of God is perfect, but man is not perfect and not
all
> > > man
> > > > understand it, it requires much study and prayer.
> > > >    For instance in Gen.2:21, the Bible say's that God took a rib
from
> > > adam
> > > > to creat eve, but the Scriptures say that he took a curve from Adam,
I
> > am
> > > > not a scientice but I know this has to do with the D.N.A. Man is
just
> > > > begining to understand what was written thousands of years ago. God
> > bless
> > >
> > > This is a perfect example of the babble being used  to justify/prove
> > > anything that anyone wants it to. Mythology is very mallable, isn't
it?
> > > DNA my ass, you dolt.
> > >     RJM
> > >

In article <iElD6.1502$wq3.497973@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
<cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>   Geron:  You are right, God will condemn people who spread and say they
> know the Gospel and do not, as for me I condemn no man, I just teach the
> truth to those who are interested and only to them, if your not interested
> in the Gospel that's your choice, but why are you reading things that you
> don't believe in?

You've never read anything you don't 'believe' in?  How do you know before
you read it and think about it?

>  Speak for your self, someday you will know there is a
> God, as for me I already know there is.

You sound like you only 'know' what you've read from your
propaganda-filled tradition.  Have you ever walked outside and picked up a
rock that was tens of millions of years old or looked closely at a
long-evolved insect?  Have you ever found the Andromeda galaxy on a clear
night and marvelled that its light left its stars there almost 3 million
years ago?  These simple facts were unknown at the time of the writing of
your scripture, but if they had been known, your orthodoxy would be
significantly different.  But types like you would be blindly accepting
some other simplistic theological view of our world.

>      Christianity started thirteen thousand years ago when God said let us
> make man flesh in our image,

Very few christians would agree with that number, and no other religions
would.  You don't seem to need any connections to the real world of today.

> that was after the overthrow of satan.

Satan's already been overthrown?  Well, then all's well!  Where's the need
for godmen to rescue us?

Geron

> God bless
>
> "geron" <geron@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:geron-1604010844540001@lc0479.zianet.com...
> > In article <cn9C6.419$Gv5.55669@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
> > <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >    Brakman: Your knowledge of the Scriptures seem to be limited,
> everyone is
> > > free to choose whatever they want to believe, I was not trying to prove
> > > anything to you, just quoting Scripture, believe what you like. God
> bless
> >
> > God will surely condemn people who occupy themselves with fostering and
> > knowingly spreading ignorance about his world, but maybe you don't know
> > any better, clarence?
> >
> > Someday we'll all find out if there are any gods or a devils, and what it
> > (they) thinks about our chosen arrogances.
> >
> > Your knowledge of the real world seems to be limited, - everyone is free
> > to choose whatever they want to believe... heh..  Atheists and others
> > here, are merely trying to warn Christians that their theology which
> > started out as Paulism and took many centuries to develop, has absolutely
> > no chance of being a true picture of this universe or the way it works.
> > But everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe, right?..
> >
> > Other mainline world theologies, in their liberal forms, at least have a
> > possibility of being true and reliable, but the contradictory events and
> > the outrageous claims of the Christian myth do not.
> >
> > As a 'fear and guilt' device for manipulating and controlling the
> > pre-scientific masses in the dark ages it was tailor-made!, but as a
> > modern person, think about how it's stunted your growth, clarence..
> >
> > Geron

Wow you present a perfect example of counter-persuasive writing/speaking
techniques.
Absolutely no one, would be persuased by this! I should save your posts for when
I teach Critical Thinking.

Fluffy Critter wrote:

> "Royce Buehler" <figvine@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AD4994A.1746694B@earthlink.net...
> > Fluffy, your science comprehension doesn't rate an F -
> > you show evidence of trying.  But some sort of D is in order.
> > Or maybe an Incomplete.
>
> Whatever you say there, ask me if I care what you think.  Big Bang theory,
> and evolution is still full of bs, just like you.
>
> >
> > Fluffy Critter wrote:
> > >
> > > It is highly possible to accept science and still be a believer in
> > > Creationism.  However,
> > > Darwinian evolutionary theory (and I mean Larmarckian-Darwinian descent
> of
> > > the species), is simply put, an insane joke foisted upon simple minds
> who
> > > usually believe whatever someone in authority tells them to believe.
> >
> > Your ignorance of the evidence and probable unwillingness to
> > examine it is duly noted.
>
> Your bias and presumptions on the part of meaningless universe screams out
> how loudly how much "science" has lobotomized you.
>
> >
> > > In fact the big bang model
> > > has been revised so many times, it makes Elizabeth Taylor and her many
> > > marriages look tiny in comparison.  And each time its "updated", its
> > > always then promoted and believed to be "absolute truth".  What a joke.
> >
> > The idea that any cosmological theories have been promoted as, or
> > believed to be, "absolute truth" is indeed a joke.
>
> So what.  Its still treated as such, as in how much you tell me I dont
> understand it.  What you fail miserably to realize that I do understand it,
> I just dont agree with it.
>
> The basic
> > theory which the term "Big Bang" was coined to describe has never
> > changed.  (It is simply the denial of a steady-state universe,
> > and the assertion that the universe is expanding uniformly, and
> > has a definite age derivable from the Hubble constant.)
>
> Yadda, yadda, yadda, still is full of gaping holes.
>
>  Many
> > particular models of the earliest history of the Big Bang have
> > been tossed around, but none of them has ever had universal
> > acceptance in the scientific community.
>
> Your wrong.
>
> And none of them has ever
> > been declared to be "absolute truth"; religious dogman works that
> > way, but science doesn't.
> >
>
> Well aint that a pickle.  Science gets away with belittling others for
> thinking about things differently, all the while claiming to have no
> "absolute truth".  You would make a good lawyer/liar by the way you twist
> things to suite own self interests.
>
> > > Our universe began on a spiral, not from an explosion.
> >
> > Where does that one come from, Fluffy? (And you are aware,
> > aren't you, that the Big Bang was not "an explosion?")
>
> It wasnt an explosion.....hmmmmmmmmm....where did  my english teacher go
> wrong, big bang.....means not a big bang......hehehe... something tells me
> your grasping at straws.  Ok, lets rename the same nonsense, big
> expansion....chuckle.  Pardon while I get the air freshener, there seems to
> be alot of bullshit in the air these days.
>
> >
> > >  The big bang led to the thinking of the big crunch, but then
> > > again recently this was disproven also, and guess what, no more
> > > big crunch.
> >
> > Yes, it led to thinking about the big crunch - as one of the
> > possibilities.
>
> I thought I barely got a D from your anti-christ science?  Now I see that
> you actually agree with something I said, concerning the
> not-really-a-big-bang...hehehe
>
>   Scientists knew all along, and said all along,
> > that whether there would be a big crunch depended on the overall
> > density of matter, which had not yet been measured.
>
> You actually mean some scientists, since as you put it, there are never any
> absolutes within science.
>
> >
> > Once it was measured sufficiently, they said: okay, we'd been
> > saying we don't know whether there will be a big crunch; now
> > we know; there won't be.  (Actually, they're still not saying
> > that we *know* - just that it's looking extremely unlikely.)
>
> We always knew that the universe was infinite, and thus goes on forever, and
> ever, and ever.  What tok you "scientists" so long to take your head out of
> the sand, or should that be your asses?
>
> >
> > > Entropy suggests that all energy in the universe is dissappating.  So
> big
> > > bang theorists again revised their theory, when they saw the birth of
> stars.
> > > Big Bang theory originally was believed that no new matter ever comes
> into
> > > existence, because it was all created instantly, at the moment of the
> big
> > > explosion.  That was disproven, so instead of discarding the theory, it
> was
> > > "updated" but sillily remained the same theory.
> >
> > The birth of stars is completely compatible with the law of entropy
> > increase.
>
> The birth of stars doesnt always come from stellar gas, you sycophant.  Its
> so easy to spout the status line of thinking isnt it.
>
> You are simply mistaken; there was no change in the
> > scientific paradigm.
>
> Your wrong.  The big bang originally described a universe, where no new
> matter came into existence.  The first law of thermodynamics says, matter
> cannot be created or destroyed.  Is that no taught anymore? Are you saying
> it never was taught?  You get an F for science history.
>
> And the birth of stars does not mean that
> > "new matter" has come into existence.  Stars are born when already
> > existing matter condenses under the influence of gravitation.
> >
> > Of course, new matter *can* come into existence, or go out of
> > existence, and does all the time.  Since Einstein's special theory
> > of relativity, it's been recognized that what's constant is not
> > matter, but the sum total of mass and energy.
>
> Semantic games above to state exactly what my point was all about, but made
> to look like its in disagreement.  Hehehe, then again, no one ever said,
> scientific sycophants arent full  of assumptions.  hehe, you know what
> happens when you assume eh?
>
> >
> > >  Then it was finally
> > > understood that certain forms of particles NEVER loose any mass or
> energy,
> > > for all eternity!!!!!!!  And in the case of the universe, 14 billion
> year
> > > old, electrons, forever changing orbits  within the atom, and always
> > > existing, and always maintaining the exact same, read EXACT SAME charge,
> > > blew the minds of astrophysicists.....because to simply put it, they
> dont
> > > know how, and cant fathom why!!!!
> >
> > Sounds like someone fed you a *very* garbled version of the
> > discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
>
> Sounds like you have no idea why Red Shift data is garbled.  Why?  Because
> you can do nothing other than spout ideas from other people, and have none
> of your own, which go against the grain of "scientific absoluteness".  Whats
> the matter, afraid, your science is wrong?
>
> Not only can scientists
> > "fathom why" that radiation exists, they were able to predict both
> > its wavelength, and the scale of its fluctuations, before either
> > was observed.
> >
> > Photons in the cosmic microwave background have not lost any of
> > their energy (they never had any rest mass), because they haven't
> > collided with anything since the universe first became large enough
> > to allow light to travel.
>
> Actually your wrong again, photons do loose energy and come to be called
> "tired light" plus photons become gravitationally trapped, in effect
> transforming into atoms.  Man the bullshit meter is going off the scale,
> when reading your response.  Pfffffff, pffffffff...(spraying more air
> freshener in here)
>
>   What blew the minds of astrophysicists
> > was that we could actually see and measure what we had predicted -
> > even though it was almost as old as the universe itself.
>
> What a shocker, scientists blown away by their own intelligence.  hehehehe
>
> >
> > > So you see, people, science doesnt know everything, far from it.
>
> You certainly demonstrated that, but all the while acting like there is no
> way anything I said, could possibly be scientific reality.  Like cosmic
> microwave background radiation (in other words, cosmic radiation) is none
> other than us staring into a mirror.  But why should you understand that.
>
> >
> > Science never claimed to know everything.  What you have made
> > clear is that you know relatively little yet about science.
>
> All you demonstrated is the arrogance of the scientific priesthood, and that
> you follow in the footsteps of unoriginal scientific sycophants.
>
> >
> > >  They who believe solely in science, are just
> > > hateful of the Spirit, because the Spirit speaks to every generation,
> > > without fear or judgement.
> >
> > Here we are firmly agreed.  To rule something out of court as unreal,
> > whenever science cannot measure it, is a recipe for spiritual death.
>
> Like your replies.
>
> >
> > >  And evolution (I am not attempting to debunct
> > > the scientific fact of hereditary evolutionary laws either)  doesnt
> > > explain the origin of the species, because life can only repeat
> > > ONLY come from life. Origins and basic genetic adaptation are two
> > > different things.
> >
> > This is a point that evolutionists too are in fact always making:
> > the origin of species (which evolution does explain) and the
> > origin of life (which evolution never claimed to explain) are
> > two very different things.  Whether a materialistic explanation
> > for the origin of life *could* exist is still very much an open
> > question.  But no one is claiming that we have one yet.
>
> Man you must be one confused dude.
>
> >
> > > TO believe
> > > in biological laws, or cosmological laws, such as Maxwell Planck and
> > > Einstein doesnt invalidate the Spirit, because mankind has merely
> > > discovered what the Spirit created aeons ago.  If you hate that fact,
> > > that you simply put, have hatred for the Spirit, and are not some
> > > "superior intellectual mind" above Faith.  Thats just ego talking.
> >
> > Your philosophical points are well made, Fluffy.  (Although it
> > sounds like you're a little quick to assume that someone "hates"
> > an idea, just because they don't at this point agree with it.)
> > But in order to make an impression on the people you're taking
> > issue with, you'll need to learn a good deal more about the
> > actual scientific issues. In particular, common evolutionary
> > descent of all species from some one-celled ancestor is one more
> > of the laws that "the Spirit created aeons ago."
>
> That is a load of crap.  You have no idea what your talking about.  The
> Spirit never spoke to you, and this I know.  You get an F in understanding
> spiritual-science, as well as what the Spirit says about creation.  Your a
> hypocrite and a sycophant.

   Geron:  I read material that is of interest to me, so I will assume that
at least you have a positive interest in the Scriptures.
   There were many things that the prophets knew thousands of years ago that
modern science is just beginning to understand, and since they won't accept
creation they struggle to try and prove theories that could easily be proven
to be false by science itself, you see true science only deals with facts,
and so does the Scriptures.
    Religions on the other hand are all man made, some with good intentions
and some are just big business, I agree that religions won't agree with me,
but then I have not found one that agrees with the Scriptures, and I am not
the only one that have been given the key of David to unlock the Scriptures
and prepare to face the antichrist that will soon be here.
    You claim to have picked up a rock that was ten million years old, well
I've picked up tree sap that was older then that and had mosquitoes in it,
and you know what they look exactly the same today, science claims that man
has evolved in the million year or so, but I've seen perfect man footprints
in Texas that were said to be about forty millions of years old, and the
people there tell me although many universities have been invited to go
check them out no one ever went, and I have seen a perfect man footprint in
New Mexico in stone and that one is fifty million years old and has to be
guarded by armed guards, do you think that scienties don't know this, you
bet they do, but if they admite it then there goes there theorie of
evelution, earth is a few billions of years old and the Scriptures don't
disagree with that.
     You could read in 2.Peter.3:5-6, that many people are ignorant that the
world that then was perished with water, and he was not talking about Noahs
flood which was just local,  are you one of those that are ignorant of the
first world age, same world different age, that's when satan attempted to
overthrow God, you could read about that in.Jer.4:19-28, that's when cities
like Atlantis were destroyed or covered with water, it did not sink, for his
sin satan was sentenced to perish, you can read about that in Eze.28, but
there were a third of Gods children that fallowed satan and God could not
bring himself to destroy them without giveing them one chance and this is
it, God said let us make man flesh in our image, most everyone born innocent
and free to choose, with only 9% of there brain, millions of years erased
from your memory so you could be free to choose, those that did not or will
not have the oppertunity to choose Christ will get there chance in the
thousand year judgement day which will soon be here, you are lucky you have
just read some truth, but if you hear it and refuse it, well I judge no man.
    You could read in Gen.1:2, it says that the world was without form, but
the Scriptures say it became without form, and that happend at satans
attempt to overthrow God, and the rest of the creation story is actully the
recreation and that began thirteen thousand years ago. If your interested I
could tell you more.God bless

"geron" <geron@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:geron-2004010955300001@lc0644.zianet.com...
> In article <iElD6.1502$wq3.497973@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
> <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >   Geron:  You are right, God will condemn people who spread and say they
> > know the Gospel and do not, as for me I condemn no man, I just teach the
> > truth to those who are interested and only to them, if your not
interested
> > in the Gospel that's your choice, but why are you reading things that
you
> > don't believe in?
>
> You've never read anything you don't 'believe' in?  How do you know before
> you read it and think about it?
>
> >  Speak for your self, someday you will know there is a
> > God, as for me I already know there is.
>
> You sound like you only 'know' what you've read from your
> propaganda-filled tradition.  Have you ever walked outside and picked up a
> rock that was tens of millions of years old or looked closely at a
> long-evolved insect?  Have you ever found the Andromeda galaxy on a clear
> night and marvelled that its light left its stars there almost 3 million
> years ago?  These simple facts were unknown at the time of the writing of
> your scripture, but if they had been known, your orthodoxy would be
> significantly different.  But types like you would be blindly accepting
> some other simplistic theological view of our world.
>
> >      Christianity started thirteen thousand years ago when God said let
us
> > make man flesh in our image,
>
> Very few christians would agree with that number, and no other religions
> would.  You don't seem to need any connections to the real world of today.
>
> > that was after the overthrow of satan.
>
> Satan's already been overthrown?  Well, then all's well!  Where's the need
> for godmen to rescue us?
>
> Geron
>
> > God bless
> >
> > "geron" <geron@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:geron-1604010844540001@lc0479.zianet.com...
> > > In article <cn9C6.419$Gv5.55669@news1.telusplanet.net>, "clarence"
> > > <cdumont@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >    Brakman: Your knowledge of the Scriptures seem to be limited,
> > everyone is
> > > > free to choose whatever they want to believe, I was not trying to
prove
> > > > anything to you, just quoting Scripture, believe what you like. God
> > bless
> > >
> > > God will surely condemn people who occupy themselves with fostering
and
> > > knowingly spreading ignorance about his world, but maybe you don't
know
> > > any better, clarence?
> > >
> > > Someday we'll all find out if there are any gods or a devils, and what
it
> > > (they) thinks about our chosen arrogances.
> > >
> > > Your knowledge of the real world seems to be limited, - everyone is
free
> > > to choose whatever they want to believe... heh..  Atheists and others
> > > here, are merely trying to warn Christians that their theology which
> > > started out as Paulism and took many centuries to develop, has
absolutely
> > > no chance of being a true picture of this universe or the way it
works.
> > > But everyone is free to choose whatever they want to believe, right?..
> > >
> > > Other mainline world theologies, in their liberal forms, at least have
a
> > > possibility of being true and reliable, but the contradictory events
and
> > > the outrageous claims of the Christian myth do not.
> > >
> > > As a 'fear and guilt' device for manipulating and controlling the
> > > pre-scientific masses in the dark ages it was tailor-made!, but as a
> > > modern person, think about how it's stunted your growth, clarence..
> > >
> > > Geron