🚀 go-pugleaf

> >Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
> >sacrifice at the altar of "science".


I think you are being rather unfair.  Asking "what other truths are they
willing to sacrifice" is a loaded question.  You can still be a
christian and believe in the bible and still accept some of the truths
set forth by science.

A Pagano wrote:
>
> Check out
>
> "Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)
>
> David Buckna

Another post of ultrahyperworthless religious ultrahypertrash which was
 a filthy felony which should never have been posted here
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not any more worthless than some of the other things that have been
posted here. :-)

Robert Place <ecalpwr@epix.net> wrote:

>A Pagano wrote:
>>
>> Check out
>>
>> "Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
>>
>> http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
>>
>> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
>>
>> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
>>
>> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)
>>
>> David Buckna

>Another post of ultrahyperworthless religious ultrahypertrash which was
> a filthy felony which should never have been posted here
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Pagano <apagano@fast.net> wrote:
>Check out
>
>"Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
>
>http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
>
>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
>
>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
>
>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)
>
A fascinating set of interviews that will not be welcomed
by today's youthful palaeontologists, religiously zealous
in their Darwinism as they are.

Graham

In article <5jd3fg$bdh@news.u-strasbg.fr>, Graham shields
<shields@illite.u-strasbg.fr> writes
>A Pagano <apagano@fast.net> wrote:
>>Check out
>>
>>"Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
>>
>>http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
>>
>>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
>>
>>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
>>
>>http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)
>>
>A fascinating set of interviews that will not be welcomed
>by today's youthful palaeontologists, religiously zealous
>in their Darwinism as they are.

Though I am neither a paleontologist, youthful, nor a zealot, I welcome
the chance to discuss what I see as major flaws in Behe's concept of
irreducible complexity.

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe has set himself the rather difficult
challenge of finding systems that could not have evolved--systems that
need a designer.  He approaches this by defining systems that would not
work if one part were removed as "irreducibly complex," and apparently
assumes that such a system could not be evolved because there is no
"second-to-last" step which would function. The problem with this
reasoning can be seen by the following example.

I show you a set of children's bricks arranged in two columns.  Above
the columns, an arch of wedge-shaped bricks rests.  I demonstrate that
the system would not be stable without one of its components--removing
any one brick destroys the system.  The arch topples.

Ah, but you have been here before, you say.  In grade school you were
taught that an arch can be constructed using an arch former.  You fish
in the brick box and pull out the semicircular brick which you knew I
had to have used to build the arch, Resting this brick at the right
height on other bricks, you rebuild the arch.  Then you remove the arch
former and its supports.  The arch stands.

Behe is also fond of using a mouse-trap analogy. Without base, spring,
spike, hammer and cheese, he says, the mousetrap will not catch mice.
Actually, you can catch careless mice with a cheeseless mousetrap, and
if the hammer is heavy enough you don't need a spring, so the mousetrap
analogy is a poor one for irreducible complexity.  What is even more
devastating to Behe's idea is that nature does not set out to build a
mousetrap--parts used for other purposes would accidentally have a
beneficial effect.  Function is not _designed_, it _emerges_.
--
Sherilyn

Cindy Brown wrote:
>
> Not any more worthless than some of the other things that have been
> posted here. :-)
>
> Robert Place <ecalpwr@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >A Pagano wrote:
> >>
> >> Check out
> >>
> >> "Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
> >>
> >> http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
> >>
> >> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
> >>
> >> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
> >>
> >> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)
> >>
> >> David Buckna
>
> >Another post of ultrahyperworthless religious ultrahypertrash which was
> > a filthy felony which should never have been posted here
> >!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creationism vs Darwinism vs Hinduism vs Marxism vs Aaaaghhhh!

You're all here - deal with it!  We don't need any more -isms...

Dear David,

Thank you for this posting. It is so nice to hear something not in support
of evolution. After taking an Evolution class and being a Christian, I
truly struggle with this theory.

I saw a book a few years ago about a researcher that was searching for
evidence of evolution and became a Christian in the process. I believe his
last name was Ham. Any ideas on his name or his book title?


>

Dear David,

Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
read about something other than that!!

I saw a book several years ago about a scientist working on his Ph.D. in
evolution and became a christian in the process because of the overwhelming
amount of evidence he found supporting Christianity. I believe his last
name was Ham. Does anyone have any information on this author or book?

Angie McGhee wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for this posting. It is so nice to hear something not in support
> of evolution.

Even though one must lie to do so? Why is that nice?

> After taking an Evolution class and being a Christian, I
> truly struggle with this theory.

Take another class. Biology would be good.

> I saw a book a few years ago about a researcher that was searching for
> evidence of evolution and became a Christian in the process. I believe his
> last name was Ham. Any ideas on his name or his book title?

Nope. However, you might find something at http://www.icr.org.
Like-minded individuals, if nothing else.

However, if you actually value some truth in your life, I suggest you
check their 'research' link. After years of existence, they have managed
to produce (apparently) three papers- two of them in last few weeks. Not
much 'research' for an institution that calls itself the 'Institution
for Creation Research.'

Followups trimmed.

Angie McGhee wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
> I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
> read about something other than that!!
>
> I saw a book several years ago about a scientist working on his Ph.D. in
> evolution and became a christian in the process because of the overwhelming
> amount of evidence he found supporting Christianity. I believe his last
> name was Ham. Does anyone have any information on this author or book?

I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
I still accept the fact of evolution.

Pat

Angie McGhee wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for this posting. It is so nice to hear something not in support
> of evolution. After taking an Evolution class and being a Christian, I
> truly struggle with this theory.
>
> I saw a book a few years ago about a researcher that was searching for
> evidence of evolution and became a Christian in the process. I believe his
> last name was Ham. Any ideas on his name or his book title?
>
> >

Ham Sandwich - "From Pig to Human in digestible chunks"

In article <01bc4ebd$3c870b80$c909d883@mcghee.nevada.edu>
"Angie McGhee" <mcgheea1@nevada.edu> writes:

>Dear David,

>Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
>I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
>read about something other than that!!

Please explain to us what you mean by "abused  by the 'Theory of Evolution".
You sound rather silly. Are you also "harassed by plate tectonics",
"assalted by the Big Bang", and "molested by superstring theory"?

>I saw a book several years ago about a scientist working on his Ph.D. in
>evolution and became a christian in the process because of the overwhelming
>amount of evidence he found supporting Christianity. I believe his last
>name was Ham. Does anyone have any information on this author or book?

If his first name was Ken then he is not a scientist, but rather a
self-proclaimed "creation evangelist."  Ken Ham is the same guy that
travels around to different churches telling the faithful that
_Tyrannosaurus rex_ was originally a vegetarian.  I understand
he has made quite a bit of money from this nonsense. His main book
is titled _The Lie_, and represents creationism in its most low-brow
form.  The book is illustrated with cartoons of evolutionists dressed
as pirates who fire cannons at a castle labeled "Christianity". The
evolutionist castle is labeled "Satan" and has ballons floating over it
labelled "pornography", "drug abuse", "abortion", etc..Pretty silly
stuff, but to millions of voters this moronic crap is THE TRUTH and
sciences such paleontology are of the devil. Considering that the
Republican party platforms in several states support the teaching
of creationism, I think we should be worried.

DLH

On 22 Apr 1997 03:27:43 GMT, "Angie McGhee" <mcgheea1@nevada.edu>
wrote:

>Dear David,
>
>Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
>I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
>read about something other than that!!

Could you describe this "abuse" or give some examples? I can
understand your reluctance if the memories are painful, but I have
never heard of such "abuse" and am interested in knowing how it works.

[snip]



Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------------

Words you will never hear your spouse say to the police:

"I didn't know it was loaded."

Joseph T. Busfield wrote:
>
> Pat Parson <pparso39@swbell.com> wrote:
>
> >I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
> >Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
> >I still accept the fact of evolution.
>
> >Pat
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
> sacrifice at the altar of "science".  The virgin birth? The
> resurrection of Jesus?  The ascension?  The regeneration of sinful
> men? Or how about God Himself, certainly outside the sphere of
> science.  All of these are not possible in the "scientific realm" and
> I wonder how you pick and chose which parts of Christianity you
> believe and which are so much superstition?
>
> BTW, It might help if you define what the word "Christian" means to
> you, or the source of your numbers when you say "like most
> Christians"?
>
> JTB

First of all, isn't it rather arrogant of you to claim that your
interpretation of "no evolution" is one of the "truths" of the Bible?

Secondly, isn't it rather judgemental, and without evidence at that to
accuse Pat of worshipping at "the altar of "science"?

Thirdly, I agree that "the virgin birth? The resurrection of Jesus?  The
ascension?  The regeneration of sinful men? ... and God Himself" are
outside science.  That only means they are outside the sphere of study
of science *not* that science says they do not exist.  Science simply
says it is not competent to study them.

--
Never be angry when fools behave like fools.  It's better when fools
identify themselves. . .
It removes so much uncertainty.   _Wyrms_     Orson Scott Card

dlharm1 wrote:
>
> In article <01bc4ebd$3c870b80$c909d883@mcghee.nevada.edu>
> "Angie McGhee" <mcgheea1@nevada.edu> writes:
>
> >Dear David,
>
> >Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
> >I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
> >read about something other than that!!
>
> Please explain to us what you mean by "abused  by the 'Theory of Evolution".
> You sound rather silly. Are you also "harassed by plate tectonics",
> "assalted by the Big Bang", and "molested by superstring theory"?
>
> >I saw a book several years ago about a scientist working on his Ph.D. in
> >evolution and became a christian in the process because of the overwhelming
> >amount of evidence he found supporting Christianity. I believe his last
> >name was Ham. Does anyone have any information on this author or book?
>
> If his first name was Ken then he is not a scientist, but rather a
> self-proclaimed "creation evangelist."  Ken Ham is the same guy that
> travels around to different churches telling the faithful that
> _Tyrannosaurus rex_ was originally a vegetarian.  I understand
> he has made quite a bit of money from this nonsense. His main book
> is titled _The Lie_, and represents creationism in its most low-brow
> form.  The book is illustrated with cartoons of evolutionists dressed
> as pirates who fire cannons at a castle labeled "Christianity". The
> evolutionist castle is labeled "Satan" and has ballons floating over it
> labelled "pornography", "drug abuse", "abortion", etc..Pretty silly
> stuff, but to millions of voters this moronic crap is THE TRUTH and
> sciences such paleontology are of the devil. Considering that the
> Republican party platforms in several states support the teaching
> of creationism, I think we should be worried.
>
> DLH

I wouldn't take refuge in the fact that the Republican platform supports
the teaching of creationism. It is much more serious than only one party
doing it. After all, the state governments of most of the Bible Belt are
run by the Democrats. It was the State of Louisiana who lost their
battle in the Supreme Court not so long in the past.
Neither party is a paragon of rationality, so, yes, we should be very
worried.

Al Zeller

A Pagano wrote:
>
> Check out
>
> "Meeting Darwin's Wager" by Tom Woodward (Christianity Today, April 28)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/current/   CT Home Page
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514a.html  (Part 1 of 3)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514b.html  (Part 2 of 3)
>
> http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html  (Part 3 of 3)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

--
<J Q B>

Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 1997 03:27:43 GMT, "Angie McGhee" <mcgheea1@nevada.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear David,
> >
> >Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
> >I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
> >read about something other than that!!
>
> Could you describe this "abuse" or give some examples? I can
> understand your reluctance if the memories are painful, but I have
> never heard of such "abuse" and am interested in knowing how it works.

Some people feel abused by the truth.

--
<J Q B>

In article <5jjomv$coc$1@NEWS.ITW.NET>, joebus@itw.com (Joseph T. Busfield) says:
>
>Pat Parson <pparso39@swbell.com> wrote:
>
>>I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
>>Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
>>I still accept the fact of evolution.
>
>>Pat
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
>sacrifice at the altar of "science".  The virgin birth? The
>resurrection of Jesus?  The ascension?  The regeneration of sinful
>men? Or how about God Himself, certainly outside the sphere of
>science.  All of these are not possible in the "scientific realm" and
>I wonder how you pick and chose which parts of Christianity you
>believe and which are so much superstition?
>
>BTW, It might help if you define what the word "Christian" means to
>you, or the source of your numbers when you say "like most
>Christians"?
>
>JTB
>

Interjecting my thoughts . . .

God built the world.  When we study the world, we are studying God's thoughts
made visible.

The Bible was written - and copied - and translated - by fallible men
over centuries. It seems almost sacreligious to take their words over
God's thoughts. The Bible is not one monolithic structure.  In the
early days of the Church, priests argued for years - perhaps centuries -
over what should be included in the Bible.  I believe that God
inspired men through parables - as Jesus did - to write much of the Bible.

I have studied science for over thirty-seven years and find that science
brings me closer to God.  This marveleous world could not have 'just happened'.
I had a 'near-death' experience when I was twelve which has supports Christianity
and has 'colored' my life.

I have rarely had anyone agree completely with me about anything - not even my
wife. Why does it anger us when someone disagrees?  Perhaps if we LISTENED,
we might learn SOMETHING of value to us.
I have LISTENED and learned from my children.

Go with God.

Pat Parson <pparso39@swbell.com> wrote:

>I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
>Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
>I still accept the fact of evolution.

>Pat

Hi Pat,

Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
sacrifice at the altar of "science".  The virgin birth? The
resurrection of Jesus?  The ascension?  The regeneration of sinful
men? Or how about God Himself, certainly outside the sphere of
science.  All of these are not possible in the "scientific realm" and
I wonder how you pick and chose which parts of Christianity you
believe and which are so much superstition?

BTW, It might help if you define what the word "Christian" means to
you, or the source of your numbers when you say "like most
Christians"?

JTB

Joseph T. Busfield (joebus@itw.com) sez:
`Pat Parson <pparso39@swbell.com> wrote:

`>I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
`>Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
`>I still accept the fact of evolution.

`Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
`sacrifice at the altar of "science".  The virgin birth? The
`resurrection of Jesus?  The ascension?  The regeneration of sinful
`men? Or how about God Himself, certainly outside the sphere of
`science.  All of these are not possible in the "scientific realm" and
`I wonder how you pick and chose which parts of Christianity you
`believe and which are so much superstition?

`BTW, It might help if you define what the word "Christian" means to
`you, or the source of your numbers when you say "like most
`Christians"?

Further discussion on this topic should not take place in several of
the newsgroups spammed by this thread. I've ammended the followups: line,
but I will explicitly enumerate them here in the text body as well:

Please discontinue this thread in

 k12.ed.science,misc.education.home-school.misc,sci.skeptic,
k12.chat.teacher,sci.anthropology,sci.archaeology,
sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio.paleontology

You may continue, if you like, in talk.origins, and perhaps in home-
school.christian and alt.atheism . However this does not belong in the 
sci hierarchy.

--
==========================================================================
    vincent@triumf.ca   <== faster       %    Pete Vincent
    vincent@vcn.bc.ca (freenet)          % Disclaimer: all I know I
                                         % learned from reading Usenet.

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 01:29:20 GMT, joebus@itw.com (Joseph T. Busfield)
wrote:

>Pat Parson <pparso39@swbell.com> wrote:
>
>>I personally became a Christian while working on my Master's in science.
>>Didn't make me change my mind about science though; like most Christians,
>>I still accept the fact of evolution.
>
>>Pat
>
>Hi Pat,
>
>Just curious.  Which other truths of the Bible are you willing to
>sacrifice at the altar of "science".

How about this. Any parts of the Bible which contradict observation
are to be rejected.

>The virgin birth? The
>resurrection of Jesus?  The ascension?  The regeneration of sinful
>men? Or how about God Himself, certainly outside the sphere of
>science.  All of these are not possible in the "scientific realm" and
>I wonder how you pick and chose which parts of Christianity you
>believe and which are so much superstition?
>
>BTW, It might help if you define what the word "Christian" means to
>you, or the source of your numbers when you say "like most
>Christians"?



Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------------

Words you will never hear your spouse say to the police:

"I didn't know it was loaded."

In article <335df8d8.1115636@nntp.netcruiser>, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) wrote:
> On 22 Apr 1997 03:27:43 GMT, "Angie McGhee" <mcgheea1@nevada.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear David,
> >
> >Thank you for this posting! As a Christian secondary school science teacher
> >I have been abused by the "Theory of Evolution". It is nice to be able to
> >read about something other than that!!


> Could you describe this "abuse" or give some examples? I can
> understand your reluctance if the memories are painful, but I have
> never heard of such "abuse" and am interested in knowing how it works.
>
> [snip]

Dear Matt:

It would be nice to "about something other than that" IN THE APPROPRIATE GROUPS.
It would also be nice if you would learn to trim headers when encouraging others
to respond to your own posts.

Headers trimmed.



--


John Garland
nonspammers_remove_this...jgarland@morgan.ucs.mun.ca

VINCENT@reg.Triumf.CA (pete) wrote:
[...]
>[...]
>Discussion of religious issues (and in particular of "scientific"
>creationism) belongs in talk.origins; it is not appropriate for
>sci.anthropology.paleo.  It is envisaged that there will be very
>few crossposts between the two groups, and those that do occur will
>narrow followups to one of the groups.  Appropriate material for a
>crosspost might be a request for information on a scientific aspect
>of human evolution that happens to be important in the context of a
>debate in talk.origins.
>
>[...]

As a reader of talk.origins I want to object against the phrase:

  Discussion of religious issues (and in particular of "scientific"
  creationism) belongs in talk.origins...

Any other religious issue than the one you name is NOT to be discussed
on talk.origins. I think this should read:

  Discussion of religious issues belongs in other newsgroup. In
  particular discussion of "scientific" creationism belongs in
  talk.origins.

--
Andre Engels, engels@win.tue.nl
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html

"People don't stop playing games when they grow old,
 they are growing old when they stop playing games."	-- N.N.