PDA

View Full Version : Evolution, Creationism, the Bible, and the Tower of Babel



Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2011, 08:02 AM
This thread was split off from You think English is easy? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2292) in the Fund and Games forum.

================================================== ==============





Chinglish

In a Beijing hotel lobby:
"The lift is being fixed for next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable."

...

I guess God has some humor when He confused the world's languages!... Alleluia!
"Chinglesh!" I love it! :rofl:

Those are some funny examples Cheow, thanks!

:signthankspin:

But I'm curious ... do you actually believe in the story of the Tower of Babel? I mean, do you believe that there was a time in the relatively recent past (< 10,000 years ago) that the population of the whole earth actually spoke the same language, and that the reason we now have different languages is because of an act of God? The reason I ask is because there is no evidence for such a story, and it directly contradicts all the evidence we do have about how different languages formed. For example, we have lots of EVIDENCE that the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) all EVOLVED from Latin of Rome. And that all happened in the last 2000 years, so we know that those languages did not come from God "confounding our languages. And we have a mountain of evidence about the evolution of all the languages. So how do you understand the story of the Tower of Babel in light of all this scientific and historic evidence?

CWH
07-30-2011, 06:32 PM
"Chinglesh!" I love it! :rofl:

Those are some funny examples Cheow, thanks!

:signthankspin:

But I'm curious ... do you actually believe in the story of the Tower of Babel? I mean, do you believe that there was a time in the relatively recent past (< 10,000 years ago) that the population of the whole earth actually spoke the same language, and that the reason we now have different languages is because of an act of God? The reason I ask is because there is no evidence for such a story, and it directly contradicts all the evidence we do have about how different languages formed. For example, we have lots of EVIDENCE that the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) all EVOLVED from Latin of Rome. And that all happened in the last 2000 years, so we know that those languages did not come from God "confounding our languages. And we have a mountain of evidence about the evolution of all the languages. So how do you understand the story of the Tower of Babel in light of all this scientific and historic evidence?

First off, who gave us the ability to communicate in languages? No animal have such a well-developed vocal cord like humans that could produce so many different sounds and no animal in the world have a brain that can organize those sounds into languages that give meaning to the sounds. If evolution produces languages, why didn't it happens to other animals? Some parrots and birds do have fairly well developed vocal cords that can mimic human language. And many animals according to the THEORY of evolution have been here on earth much longer than humans.

Second, why did God want to confuse the world language? According to what I read in Genesis, is because human development at that time were too fast due to a single language of communication. This too fast human development may lead to "cultural" shock, stress and knowledge explosion beyond human coping ability. And logically, the way to slow down the rate of human development was to confuse the single language so that it becomes more difficult to understand and co-operate with each other and to separate them.

Genesis 11:The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Third, there are remnants of a single language among the world's languages that seem to suggest there was once a common world language. The remnants come in the form of sounds alike and similar ideologies, ideograms in the world languages. Some good examples are, and I am using Chinese as I am more familiar with that language:

Chinese "ru" has the same meaning as road and route.
Chinese "mu ti" has the same meaning as motive
Chinese "sze" has the same meaning as see.
Chinese "er" has the same meaning as ear
Chinese "far" means hair and fur.

In many languages, there are similar ideologies.... the moon represents month or monthly and night, and the sun represents day or daily.
etc.


Praise the wisdom of God. Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2011, 07:31 PM
First off, who gave us the ability to communicate in languages? No animal have such a well-developed vocal cord like humans that could produce so many different sounds and no animal in the world have a brain that can organize those sounds into languages that give meaning to the sounds. If evolution produces languages, why didn't it happens to other animals? Some parrots and birds do have fairly well developed vocal cords that can mimic human language. And many animals according to the THEORY of evolution have been here on earth much longer than humans.

Second, why did God want to confuse the world language? According to what I read in Genesis, is because human development at that time were too fast due to a single language of communication. This too fast human development may lead to "cultural" shock, stress and knowledge explosion beyond human coping ability. And logically, the way to slow down the rate of human development was to confuse the single language so that it becomes more difficult to understand and co-operate with each other and to separate them.

Genesis 11:The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.'

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Third, there are remnants of a single language among the world's languages that seem to suggest there was once a common world language. The remnants come in the form of sounds alike and similar ideologies, ideograms in the world languages. Some good examples are, and I am using Chinese as I am more familiar with that language:

Chinese "ru" has the same meaning as road and route.
Chinese "mu ti" has the same meaning as motive
Chinese "sze" has the same meaning as see.
Chinese "er" has the same meaning as ear
Chinese "far" means hair and fur.

In many languages, there are similar ideologies.... the moon represents month or monthly and night, and the sun represents day or daily.
etc.


Praise the wisdom of God. Amen. :pray:

Speaking of parrots, it's embarrassing to watch humans who should be able to think, acting like parrots who only repeat what they hear without any comprehension at all. You don't know the first thing about evolution Cheow. Your rejection of that science is no different than if you were rejecting Quantum Physics. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

And unfortunately, I doubt that you want real answers because no matter how much evidence is provided, I get the feeling that you will reject it because it contradicts the dogmas of your religion.

But I will answer with the hope that it will help you wake up to reality.

1) who gave us the ability to communicate in languages?
Nobody "gave us" that ability. It evolved.

2) If evolution produces languages, why didn't it happens to other animals?
For the same reasons that other animals have evolved other abilities that we don't have, like flying or weaving spider webs or breathing under water. Furthermore, we can see evolutionary precursors to language in the higher primates, some of whom have been taught to use sign language.

3) And many animals according to the THEORY of evolution have been here on earth much longer than humans.
The length of time on the planet does not determine the direction of evolution. Some species like sharks evolve to a very stable (optimal) form that doesn't change for millions of years. It depends upon many facts, such as environmental pressures, competition with other animals, and the possible pathways given the animals evolutionary history.

As for THEORY: I'm sorry to see that you don't understand the meaning of that word when used in a scientific context. Have you ever heard of the THEORY OF GRAVITY? Is it "just a theory" like evolution?

4) there are remnants of a single language among the world's languages that seem to suggest there was once a common world language.
Yes, that is true. Some scientists think they have evidence showing that all languages EVOLVED from a single language over thousands of years. Obviously, this scientific theory has nothing to do with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel when God supposedly confused languages all at once. The fact that you appeal to this theory to support the Biblical myth demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about. You are just grabbing bits and pieces of science, while rejecting the rest, to prop up Bible stories. Don't you realize that no one, not one person, who understands science will be convinced by such arguments?

All the best.

CWH
07-31-2011, 09:41 AM
Speaking of parrots, it's embarrassing to watch humans who should be able to think, acting like parrots who only repeat what they hear without any comprehension at all. You don't know the first thing about evolution Cheow. Your rejection of that science is no different than if you were rejecting Quantum Physics. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

And unfortunately, I doubt that you want real answers because no matter how much evidence is provided, I get the feeling that you will reject it because it contradicts the dogmas of your religion.
I am disappointed that some people have degraded themselves to such a state that now Science is their God! They are in my prayers...:pray: Human scientific knowledge is full of holes and imperfect. They may solve a problem but creates much more problems....just look at nuclear fission reactors and cars! It's not that I don't trust Science but that Science without God is imperfect. What is God? I believe God is Love, Righteousness, Goodness; without these, Science is imperfect. Many people abuse Science for greed, evil, unrighteousness means which resulted in the problems that we faced today.


But I will answer with the hope that it will help you wake up to reality.


1) who gave us the ability to communicate in languages?
Nobody "gave us" that ability. It evolved. Then who started it? You answer will be Nobody, it just happens by chance...somehow ability in communication in languages just started and evolvedby itself by magic.


[QUOTE]2) If evolution produces languages, why didn't it happens to other animals?
For the same reasons that other animals have evolved other abilities that we don't have, like flying or weaving spider webs or breathing under water. Furthermore, we can see evolutionary precursors to language in the higher primates, some of whom have been taught to use sign language.
How I wish to be evolved to be able to fly like a bird! What factors caused such different abilities? By chance or by intelligence? Haven't you read Job 38 and try to answer those questions? (I guess your answer is, "It just happened naturally and evolved"):

1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.

16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?

34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?

39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?

Humans need to teach higher primates to use sign language, it don't evolve by itself by magic. I wonder who taught Humans to speak the first language or sign in the first place?


[B]3) And many animals according to the THEORY of evolution have been here on earth much longer than humans.
The length of time on the planet does not determine the direction of evolution. Some species like sharks evolve to a very stable (optimal) form that doesn't change for millions of years. It depends upon many facts, such as environmental pressures, competition with other animals, and the possible pathways given the animals evolutionary history.
Fine and there are mammals that suddenly appeared and took over from the dinosaurs; funny sharks survived and dinosaurs died out?


As for THEORY: I'm sorry to see that you don't understand the meaning of that word when used in a scientific context. Have you ever heard of the THEORY OF GRAVITY? Is it "just a theory" like evolution?
Nobody knows what Gravity is and how it is formed, it is the most mysterious force in the universe or.... do you know? Scientist speculated over gravitron and its existence is not confirmed; it is still a theory until confirmed.


4) there are remnants of a single language among the world's languages that seem to suggest there was once a common world language.
Yes, that is true. Some scientists think they have evidence showing that all languages EVOLVED from a single language over thousands of years. Obviously, this scientific theory has nothing to do with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel when God supposedly confused languages all at once. The fact that you appeal to this theory to support the Biblical myth demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about. You are just grabbing bits and pieces of science, while rejecting the rest, to prop up Bible stories. Don't you realize that no one, not one person, who understands science will be convinced by such arguments?
Well, what can I say when someone's motto is, "Science is God. In Science We Trust, in God Not Much".


Praise God Aleluia. Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-31-2011, 05:08 PM
I am disappointed that some people have degraded themselves to such a state that now Science is their God! They are in my prayers...:pray: Human scientific knowledge is full of holes and imperfect. They may solve a problem but creates much more problems....just look at nuclear fission reactors and cars! It's not that I don't trust Science but that Science without God is imperfect.

Cheow,

Have you gone insane? I don't think that Science is God! I've never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. You are like someone who claims that 1 + 2 = 17, and I say that you don't know anything about Mathematics, and you reply that I think "Mathematics is God." It's just plain nuts.

Everyone knows that Science has "holes" and is "imperfect" - that has nothing to do with anything I have written. And the fact that we might sometimes cause more problems by our choices means nothing because that can happen anytime we make a choice about anything. Look at all the problems caused by belief in religion! Members of one religion kill members of another religion.

And I wasn't talking about your failure to TRUST science, I was talking about your failure to UNDERSTAND science. You don't let yourself understand anything I wrote because if you admit you understood, then you would not be able hide from truth and reality.



Then who started it? You answer will be Nobody, it just happens by chance...somehow ability in communication in languages just started and evolvedby itself by magic.

Evolution is not "chance." Your statement indicates yet again you have no idea what you are talking about. How is it that a 21st century man like you could fail to have any knowledge about a well-established science like evolution?



How I wish to be evolved to be able to fly like a bird! What factors caused such different abilities? By chance or by intelligence? Haven't you read Job 38 and try to answer those questions? (I guess your answer is, "It just happened naturally and evolved"):

And again, your comment indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. How many books have you read that explain evolution? NONE? Brilliant Cheow. That means that you are like a person who can't add or subtract, but who pontificates about the falsehood of Calculus. Why do you do such foolishness in public? Aren't you embarrassed?

Humans need to teach higher primates to use sign language, it don't evolve by itself by magic. I wonder who taught Humans to speak the first language or sign in the first place?



Nobody knows what Gravity is and how it is formed, it is the most mysterious force in the universe or.... do you know? Scientist speculated over gravitron and its existence is not confirmed; it is still a theory until confirmed.

Yes, the theory of how gravity works is not confirmed in every detail. But much of it is, and nobody who knows anything would reject gravity because the "Theory of Gravity" might be refined over time. The same thing goes for evolution. But you don't understand that. And it seems it doesn't matter how many times it is explained to you.



Well, what can I say when someone's motto is, "Science is God. In Science We Trust, in God Not Much".

What can you say? Well, you could begin by apologizing for making more false and absurd assertions about me having the motto "Science is God."

And as for trusting science over God - consider this. For thousands of years God was perfectly happy to let his people die horrible deaths from easily preventable diseases. It didn't matter how much they begged him to save them. He let them die without doing anything for them. He "acted" as if he did not exist at all. Then, when we "sinful humans" invented science, we saved millions of lives that God was happy to let die. So any sane person would have very good reason to "trust" science over God. When the sick trust God they die. When they trust science, they live. Pretty simple stuff.

CWH
08-01-2011, 06:23 AM
[QUOTE=RAM;33673]Cheow,

Have you gone insane? I don't think that Science is God! I've never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. You are like someone who claims that 1 + 2 = 17, and I say that you don't know anything about Mathematics, and you reply that I think "Mathematics is God." It's just plain nuts.

Everyone knows that Science has "holes" and is "imperfect" - that has nothing to do with anything I have written. And the fact that we might sometimes cause more problems by our choices means nothing because that can happen anytime we make a choice about anything. Look at all the problems caused by belief in religion! Members of one religion kill members of another religion.

And I wasn't talking about your failure to TRUST science, I was talking about your failure to UNDERSTAND science. You don't let yourself understand anything I wrote because if you admit you understood, then you would not be able hide from truth and reality.

I am no madman. I don't bother what bad things people said about me if what I said is in support of God,...my reward is great in heaven. I don't boast about myself or about others, I boast about God. I detest people who says bad things about God:

Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.



Evolution is not "chance." Your statement indicates yet again you have no idea what you are talking about. How is it that a 21st century man like you could fail to have any knowledge about a well-established science like evolution?
Evolution of species is bullshit. Show me any animal or living thing that have evolved naturally without human intervention. You can't because there is none. Dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats regardless of breeding, it's as simple as that.


And again, your comment indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. How many books have you read that explain evolution? NONE? Brilliant Cheow. That means that you are like a person who can't add or subtract, but who pontificates about the falsehood of Calculus. Why do you do such foolishness in public? Aren't you embarrassed?
I standby my ernest support of God as the creator of all. Saying bad things against me who supports God will only gives me more rewards in heaven.

Humans need to teach higher primates to use sign language, it don't evolve by itself by magic. I wonder who taught Humans to speak the first language or sign in the first place?



Yes, the theory of how gravity works is not confirmed in every detail. But much of it is, and nobody who knows anything would reject gravity because the "Theory of Gravity" might be refined over time. The same thing goes for evolution. But you don't understand that. And it seems it doesn't matter how many times it is explained to you.
If something is not or has not been confirm in every detail such as gravity and evolution is as good as speculation, then why belief as if it is nothing but the truth? It is the same as one who believe UFO and Ghost as truth since they also have not been confirmed in every detail.



What can you say? Well, you could begin by apologizing for making more false and absurd assertions about me having the motto "Science is God."

And as for trusting science over God - consider this. For thousands of years God was perfectly happy to let his people die horrible deaths from easily preventable diseases. It didn't matter how much they begged him to save them. He let them die without doing anything for them. He "acted" as if he did not exist at all. Then, when we "sinful humans" invented science, we saved millions of lives that God was happy to let die. So any sane person would have very good reason to "trust" science over God. When the sick trust God they die. When they trust science, they live. Pretty simple stuff.
And for thousand of years man have been waiting for God for the answers. Even if God did not intervene, humans would still die anyway naturally and from their sinful nature...."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". It means only through God's grace that humans can be saved. I believe God did not intervene because the time is still not ripe for salvation:

He set another parable before them, saying,
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field,
but while people slept,
his enemy came and sowed darnel also among the wheat, and went away.
But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then the darnel appeared also.

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’
"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them up?’
"But he said, ‘No, lest perhaps while you gather up the darnel,
you root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers,


"First, gather up the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them;
but gather the wheat into my barn."‘"


Lord, Gather us your wheat, Amen.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2011, 09:11 AM
Cheow,

Have you gone insane? I don't think that Science is God! I've never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. You are like someone who claims that 1 + 2 = 17, and I say that you don't know anything about Mathematics, and you reply that I think "Mathematics is God." It's just plain nuts.

I am no madman. I don't bother what bad things people said about me if what I said is in support of God,...my reward is great in heaven. I don't boast about myself or about others, I boast about God. I detest people who says bad things about God:

Sorry Cheow, but do you really think God will reward you for stating falsehoods and absurdities? Your "zeal" for God has made you act in a way that God hates. You comments are false, absurd, and ungodly. You really need to start using your BRAIN for a change. And claiming that you are suffering persecution for Christ only adds to your sins.





Evolution is not "chance." Your statement indicates yet again you have no idea what you are talking about. How is it that a 21st century man like you could fail to have any knowledge about a well-established science like evolution?

Evolution of species is bullshit. Show me any animal or living thing that have evolved naturally without human intervention. You can't because there is none. Dogs will be dogs and cats will be cats regardless of breeding, it's as simple as that.

Using strong language only accentuates the stupidity and ignorance of your comment. It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. No evolutionary scientist has ever said that cats will become dogs. You know nothing of the science of evolution, so your assertion that it is "bullshit" is itself bullshit.

I asked how many books on evolution you have read, and you did not answer. I will take that as a confirmation of what I already suspected. You have never read a single book on evolution, you know nothing of evolutionary science, and yet you reject the work of untold THOUSANDS of highly intelligent scientists as "bullshit." Now you want to hear the punchline? Scientists use DNA evidence to show that all plants and animals have descended from a common ancestor. It is the same DNA evidence used in courts to establish innocence or guilt. People are set free or executed depending on this evidence. And you are ignorant of it all, but you reject it absolutely as if you had real knowledge? That's just plain nuts.





And again, your comment indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. How many books have you read that explain evolution? NONE? Brilliant Cheow. That means that you are like a person who can't add or subtract, but who pontificates about the falsehood of Calculus. Why do you do such foolishness in public? Aren't you embarrassed?

I standby my ernest support of God as the creator of all. Saying bad things against me who supports God will only gives me more rewards in heaven.

You are not giving any "support of God as creator of all" when you deny reality. Sorry, that's just the way things work. You ignorant rejection of evolution no more supports God than when the Catholics attacked Galileo as a heretic for asserting that the earth's rotates around the sun. And speaking of Catholics, they accept evolution as a scientific fact.



Humans need to teach higher primates to use sign language, it don't evolve by itself by magic. I wonder who taught Humans to speak the first language or sign in the first place?

"Evolve by magic?" Nobody suggested any such thing. Again, you fail to understand the argument. It matters not if humans had to teach the language. The fact that they could learn it tells us a lot about the evolution of language. If they have the ability to learn it, then their brains are more advanced than the animals that don't have that ability.




Yes, the theory of how gravity works is not confirmed in every detail. But much of it is, and nobody who knows anything would reject gravity because the "Theory of Gravity" might be refined over time. The same thing goes for evolution. But you don't understand that. And it seems it doesn't matter how many times it is explained to you.
If something is not or has not been confirm in every detail such as gravity and evolution is as good as speculation, then why belief as if it is nothing but the truth? It is the same as one who believe UFO and Ghost as truth since they also have not been confirmed in every detail.

That's just plain nuts Cheow. The fact that science is always in a state of incompleteness does not mean that it is "as good as speculation." We put men on the moon using "incomplete" science. Your statements are truly absurd.

And tell me this, why don't you reject the Bible if your standard for truth is so high? Talk about something that's incomplete and speculative! Ha! Just look at how devout Christians can't agree on anything. You don't see any scientists madly debating the value of the gravitational constant or the basic laws of electromagnetism. Modern science is confirmed as true a thousand times more strongly than anything in the Bible. This proves that your "balance" is false, and a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, as it is written:
Proverbs 11:1 A False balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.
You would do well to consider your ways Cheow. You do not please God by making false statements.





What can you say? Well, you could begin by apologizing for making more false and absurd assertions about me having the motto "Science is God."

And as for trusting science over God - consider this. For thousands of years God was perfectly happy to let his people die horrible deaths from easily preventable diseases. It didn't matter how much they begged him to save them. He let them die without doing anything for them. He "acted" as if he did not exist at all. Then, when we "sinful humans" invented science, we saved millions of lives that God was happy to let die. So any sane person would have very good reason to "trust" science over God. When the sick trust God they die. When they trust science, they live. Pretty simple stuff.

And for thousand of years man have been waiting for God for the answers. Even if God did not intervene, humans would still die anyway naturally and from their sinful nature...."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". It means only through God's grace that humans can be saved. I believe God did not intervene because the time is still not ripe for salvation:

You missed the point yet again. It has nothing to do with the fact that all people will eventually die, and it has nothing to do with ultimate salvation when "the time" would be ripe. My POINT was that God refused to answer the prayers of people when they were suffering and dying of diseases that are easily treated with antibiotics. Why do I have to repeat something so obvious? Don't you understand anything? When you ignore the main point of an argument, everyone reading will laugh at how stupid Christians look. I think it's great that you want to support your beliefs, but it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself by ignoring the points that you can't refute. If you can't refute a point, the only honorable thing to do is to admit that you cannot, at this time, refute that point, and that you will get back to it or whatever. But to simply ignore it as if you didn't even see it? That makes you look foolish, and does not help you in our effort to "support God as creator of all."

CWH
08-01-2011, 10:53 AM
[QUOTE=RAM;33678]Sorry Cheow, but do you really think God will reward you for stating falsehoods and absurdities? Your "zeal" for God has made you act in a way that God hates. You comments are false, absurd, and ungodly. You really need to start using your BRAIN for a change. And claiming that you are suffering persecution for Christ only adds to your sins.
Oh, thank you so much. I can see heavenly rewards piling up.



Using strong language only accentuates the stupidity and ignorance of your comment. It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. No evolutionary scientist has ever said that cats will become dogs. You know nothing of the science of evolution, so your assertion that it is "bullshit" is itself bullshit.
Just show me any living things that proved Evolution.....just one will do. BTW, the THEORY of evolution is getting out of date, some people are moving towards the concept of Intelligent Design. Evolution itself cannot produce such things as DNA, and the human brain, it is just too complex. What is it that produce the Intelligence in evolution? It's like saying what intelligence is used in creating smart phones?...certainly not evolution. I wonder who created intelligence in the first place?...the knowledge of good and evil?

http://atomicbombeffects.com/is-evolution-an-outdated-theory_169.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design



I asked how many books on evolution you have read, and you did not answer. I will take that as a confirmation of what I already suspected. You have never read a single book on evolution, you know nothing of evolutionary science, and yet you reject the work of untold THOUSANDS of highly intelligent scientists as "bullshit." Now you want to hear the punchline? Scientists use DNA evidence to show that all plants and animals have descended from a common ancestor. It is the same DNA evidence used in courts to establish innocence or guilt. People are set free or executed depending on this evidence. And you are ignorant of it all, but you reject it absolutely as if you had real knowledge? That's just plain nuts.
Oh, Thanks again...rewards piling up. Let me remind that there are also THOUSANDS perhaps MILLIONS of highly intelligent pastors and Christians who believe the Bible to be the Words of God and have written books on them. Are you judging their intelligence?

I wonder how DNA was formed by evolution? Show me proof. No proof is as good as speculation. Did Jesus read lots of books which gave Him scriptural knowledge, healing powers? No, even the Pharisees were surprised. There are many ways to gain knowledge such as studying nature, reading the internet, news etc. and not necessary by books.

Matthew 13:53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.



You are not giving any "support of God as creator of all" when you deny reality. Sorry, that's just the way things work. You ignorant rejection of evolution no more supports God than when the Catholics attacked Galileo as a heretic for asserting that the earth's rotates around the sun. And speaking of Catholics, they accept evolution as a scientific fact.
Evolution theory is just a theory short of speculation. You are out-dated, the current debate is Evolution vs Intelligent Design vs Creation.



"Evolve by magic?" Nobody suggested any such thing. Again, you fail to understand the argument. It matters not if humans had to teach the language. The fact that they could learn it tells us a lot about the evolution of language. If they have the ability to learn it, then their brains are more advanced than the animals that don't have that ability.
I wonder what created intelligent brain in the first place? And Human brain is far better than the best computer in the world.


That's just plain nuts Cheow. The fact that science is always in a state of incompleteness does not mean that it is "as good as speculation." We put men on the moon using "incomplete" science. Your statements are truly absurd.
Thanks again....It proves the fact that all human science is imperfect and incomplete; God's knowledge is superior for His ways and thoughts are higher than ours.


And tell me this, why don't you reject the Bible if your standard for truth is so high? Talk about something that's incomplete and speculative! Ha! Just look at how devout Christians can't agree on anything. You don't see any scientists madly debating the value of the gravitational constant or the basic laws of electromagnetism. Modern science is confirmed as true a thousand times more strongly than anything in the Bible. This proves that your "balance" is false, and a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, as it is written:
Proverbs 11:1 A False balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.
You would do well to consider your ways Cheow. You do not please God by making false statements.
Thanks again....Neither do scientists agree on many of their theories and it is a good thing as it helps them to further research for the truth and refine on their theories.... same with many devout Christians.


You missed the point yet again. It has nothing to do with the fact that all people will eventually die, and it has nothing to do with ultimate salvation when "the time" would be ripe. My POINT was that God refused to answer the prayers of people when they were suffering and dying of diseases that are easily treated with antibiotics. Why do I have to repeat something so obvious? Don't you understand anything? When you ignore the main point of an argument, everyone reading will laugh at how stupid Christians look. I think it's great that you want to support your beliefs, but it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself by ignoring the points that you can't refute. If you can't refute a point, the only honorable thing to do is to admit that you cannot, at this time, refute that point, and that you will get back to it or whatever. But to simply ignore it as if you didn't even see it? That makes you look foolish, and does not help you in our effort to "support God as creator of all."
Thanks again.... it pains me to see people ignoring the Words of God. I am saying out of brotherly concern. You think antibiotic is a miracle drug? Think again... the germs are getting more resistant and "intelligent" that soon no antibiotic will be able to fight them, thanks to so call evolution. Luckily, when the germs are away from the antibiotic environment for sometime, they loses their resistance and revert back to their original self, thanks to evolution again.

Know what this passage means:
Matthew 12:43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.


May the WISDOM OF GOD abounds in us. AMEN:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2011, 01:00 PM
Sorry Cheow, but do you really think God will reward you for stating falsehoods and absurdities? Your "zeal" for God has made you act in a way that God hates. You comments are false, absurd, and ungodly. You really need to start using your BRAIN for a change. And claiming that you are suffering persecution for Christ only adds to your sins.
Oh, thank you so much. I can see heavenly rewards piling up.

OK, OK, I get it. Words mean nothing to you. Truth means nothing to you. God means nothing to you. This is all just a game. I got it. :thumb:




Using strong language only accentuates the stupidity and ignorance of your comment. It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. No evolutionary scientist has ever said that cats will become dogs. You know nothing of the science of evolution, so your assertion that it is "bullshit" is itself bullshit.
Just show me any living things that proved Evolution.....just one will do. BTW, the THEORY of evolution is getting out of date, some people are moving towards the concept of Intelligent Design. Evolution itself cannot produce such things as DNA, and the human brain, it is just too complex. What is it that produce the Intelligence in evolution? It's like saying what intelligence is used in creating smart phones?...certainly not evolution. I wonder who created intelligence in the first place?...the knowledge of good and evil?

Truth is such that only those who love it can find it. It won't help for me to continue to repeat myself. Your assertion that "the THEORY of evolution is getting out of date" is both false and absurd. The fact that the theory itself is continuing to evolve is the fundamental characteristic of any robust scientific theory. The idea of "Intelligent Design" is not itself a scientific theory, so it presents no threat of any kind to evolution. It certainly is not making it "out of date." You like the sound of "intelligent Design" because it sounds "intelligent" and "scientific" but it is neither, and you don't know anything about it or about science, and it's very silly for you to continue making claims about things you do not know. You need to get yourself informed, and then you will know what you are talking about.




I asked how many books on evolution you have read, and you did not answer. I will take that as a confirmation of what I already suspected. You have never read a single book on evolution, you know nothing of evolutionary science, and yet you reject the work of untold THOUSANDS of highly intelligent scientists as "bullshit." Now you want to hear the punchline? Scientists use DNA evidence to show that all plants and animals have descended from a common ancestor. It is the same DNA evidence used in courts to establish innocence or guilt. People are set free or executed depending on this evidence. And you are ignorant of it all, but you reject it absolutely as if you had real knowledge? That's just plain nuts.

Oh, Thanks again...rewards piling up. Let me remind that there are also THOUSANDS perhaps MILLIONS of highly intelligent pastors and Christians who believe the Bible to be the Words of God and have written books on them. Are you judging their intelligence?

So you think you God will reward you for your ignorance and false statements? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Look at all the red bold words I highlighted. You know you are ignorant, and yet you persist in saying things are false. And then you claim that God will reward you for speaking ignorant falsehoods? Come on Cheow. This joke is getting pretty pathetic. You are making yourself, and other Christians like you, look like fools. Why don't you understand this?

You asked if I am judging the intelligence of Christian apologists who have written books. My answer is simple: YES! I have read many of their books and have concluded, with strong evidence, that their arguments are very weak, stupid, and frequently absurd. It is also absurd for you to compare Christian apologetics with science since unlike science, they have no standards by which to test for truth.



I wonder how DNA was formed by evolution? Show me proof. No proof is as good as speculation.

I have repeatedly stated that the origin of DNA is one of the most difficult of the unsolved problems in science. But that has nothing to do with the question of evolution per se, which deals with how species evolved from a common ancestor. Suppose, for example, that God created the first living cell that then evolved into all species. This would change NOTHING about the theory of evolution. And it also would not help prove Christianity, because the Bible does not say that everything evolved from a single cell that was created by God.



Did Jesus read lots of books which gave Him scriptural knowledge, healing powers? No, even the Pharisees were surprised. There are many ways to gain knowledge such as studying nature, reading the internet, news etc. and not necessary by books.

You aren't Jesus. You have not received any knowledge about evolution from God. You don't know anything about the established science of evolution, but you "bullshit" and then claim that God will reward you in heaven for making ignorant statements? And now you claim that you don't need to read science books because Jesus had supernatural knowledge? Can't you see how crazy your comments are becoming?




You are not giving any "support of God as creator of all" when you deny reality. Sorry, that's just the way things work. You ignorant rejection of evolution no more supports God than when the Catholics attacked Galileo as a heretic for asserting that the earth's rotates around the sun. And speaking of Catholics, they accept evolution as a scientific fact.
Evolution theory is just a theory short of speculation. You are out-dated, the current debate is Evolution vs Intelligent Design vs Creation.

The fact that there are "Intelligent Design Creationists" and other "Creationists" who reject Science does not mean that there is a legitimate scientific debate going on.



I wonder what created intelligent brain in the first place? And Human brain is far better than the best computer in the world.

Brains evolve. Just look at an ant. It doesn't have much of a brain, and it's not very intelligent. Then look at a mouse. It has a bigger brain and is more intelligent. Then look at monkeys ... etc. Why do I have to explain such basic facts? You can look for yourself and see the correlation between brain complexity and evolution. Very simple stuff.




You missed the point yet again. It has nothing to do with the fact that all people will eventually die, and it has nothing to do with ultimate salvation when "the time" would be ripe. My POINT was that God refused to answer the prayers of people when they were suffering and dying of diseases that are easily treated with antibiotics. Why do I have to repeat something so obvious? Don't you understand anything? When you ignore the main point of an argument, everyone reading will laugh at how stupid Christians look. I think it's great that you want to support your beliefs, but it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself by ignoring the points that you can't refute. If you can't refute a point, the only honorable thing to do is to admit that you cannot, at this time, refute that point, and that you will get back to it or whatever. But to simply ignore it as if you didn't even see it? That makes you look foolish, and does not help you in our effort to "support God as creator of all."
Thanks again.... it pains me to see people ignoring the Words of God. I am saying out of brotherly concern. You think antibiotic is a miracle drug? Think again... the germs are getting more resistant and "intelligent" that soon no antibiotic will be able to fight them, thanks to so call evolution. Luckily, when the germs are away from the antibiotic environment for sometime, they loses their resistance and revert back to their original self, thanks to evolution again.

So now you admit evolution is a fact? :doh:

CWH
08-02-2011, 09:01 AM
OK, OK, I get it. Words mean nothing to you. Truth means nothing to you. God means nothing to you. This is all just a game. I got it. :thumb:


Truth is such that only those who love it can find it. It won't help for me to continue to repeat myself. Your assertion that "the THEORY of evolution is getting out of date" is both false and absurd. The fact that the theory itself is continuing to evolve is the fundamental characteristic of any robust scientific theory. The idea of "Intelligent Design" is not itself a scientific theory, so it presents no threat of any kind to evolution. It certainly is not making it "out of date." You like the sound of "intelligent Design" because it sounds "intelligent" and "scientific" but it is neither, and you don't know anything about it or about science, and it's very silly for you to continue making claims about things you do not know. You need to get yourself informed, and then you will know what you are talking about.


So you think you God will reward you for your ignorance and false statements? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Look at all the red bold words I highlighted. You know you are ignorant, and yet you persist in saying things are false. And then you claim that God will reward you for speaking ignorant falsehoods? Come on Cheow. This joke is getting pretty pathetic. You are making yourself, and other Christians like you, look like fools. Why don't you understand this?

You asked if I am judging the intelligence of Christian apologists who have written books. My answer is simple: YES! I have read many of their books and have concluded, with strong evidence, that their arguments are very weak, stupid, and frequently absurd. It is also absurd for you to compare Christian apologetics with science since unlike science, they have no standards by which to test for truth.


I have repeatedly stated that the origin of DNA is one of the most difficult of the unsolved problems in science. But that has nothing to do with the question of evolution per se, which deals with how species evolved from a common ancestor. Suppose, for example, that God created the first living cell that then evolved into all species. This would change NOTHING about the theory of evolution. And it also would not help prove Christianity, because the Bible does not say that everything evolved from a single cell that was created by God.


You aren't Jesus. You have not received any knowledge about evolution from God. You don't know anything about the established science of evolution, but you "bullshit" and then claim that God will reward you in heaven for making ignorant statements? And now you claim that you don't need to read science books because Jesus had supernatural knowledge? Can't you see how crazy your comments are becoming?


The fact that there are "Intelligent Design Creationists" and other "Creationists" who reject Science does not mean that there is a legitimate scientific debate going on.


Brains evolve. Just look at an ant. It doesn't have much of a brain, and it's not very intelligent. Then look at a mouse. It has a bigger brain and is more intelligent. Then look at monkeys ... etc. Why do I have to explain such basic facts? You can look for yourself and see the correlation between brain complexity and evolution. Very simple stuff.


So now you admit evolution is a fact? :doh:

I have never admitted evolution as a fact but as a bullshit. I have asked for proof of evolution but none was given. Evolution will continue as a theory and not a fact until proven and all doubts refuted. Brain does not evolve or our human brain will grow bigger and bigger until it cannot hold it's weight. Brain size does not dictate intelligence; dolphins and elephants brain are bigger than human yet they are no more intelligent than humans. I personally believe intelligence is related to the ability to know good and evil which no animals have except humans. BTW, the debate between Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creation continues show that somethings are just not right with the theory of evolution.

In fact, the concept of survival of the fittest can have negative impact. I suspect Hitler used such concept to propose his Germanic Super-race who he believed would ultimately dominate the world and thus his dream to conquer Europe and then the whole world.

I am sorry that this thread have been side-tracked into a debate for Evolution vs Creation vs Intelligent Design; it was supposed to be Fun and Light-hearted. Perhaps, RAM can put these discussion into a new thread as I do hope others beside me and RAM can participate in this debate.

BTW, what is Truth? Obviously, not human science.


Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life". Amen.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-02-2011, 11:14 AM
I have never admitted evolution as a fact but as a bullshit. I have asked for proof of evolution but none was given.

That's not true. I have given you much evidence, but you did not respond. For example, I told you that DNA evidence supports the idea of common descent, but you did not respond. And besides, you are being dishonest because we both know that you do not want any "proof" and you will not accept any evidence no matter how strong it is. This is obvious because if you really wanted evidence, you could find it yourself in a heartbeat on the internet. It's everywhere. All the creationist arguments have been refuted a thousand times, yet you repeat them over and over. This is why your posts look so very foolish. But for some strange reason, you don't seem to care if your write false and ignorant things that have been proven wrong a thousand times.



Evolution will continue as a theory and not a fact until proven and all doubts refuted.

Once again you prove you don't know the scientific meaning of the word "theory." It is not opposed to "fact." A scientific theory is an attempt to explain a set of observed facts. For example, we all experience the fact of gravity every day. Therefore, scientists develop a theory of gravity to explain the facts about gravity that are observed all around us. Exactly the same logic applies to evolution. Scientists have developed the theory of evolution to explain the facts of evolution that are observed all around us. Your continuous assertion that "evolution is just a theory" indicates an absolute ignorance of the meaning of that word as used in science.



Brain does not evolve or our human brain will grow bigger and bigger until it cannot hold it's weight.

Again, you fail to understand the most basic elements of the theory of evolution. Any child born could have a slightly larger or smaller brain. If too large, it doesn't survive well and is unable to reproduce and so the genes for it's larger brain would not be passed on. Likewise, if the brain is too small or defective in some other way, the same thing happens. The brain therefore naturally evolves to an optimal size. This stuff is trivial. Your arguments are absurd and any serious scientist would laugh at such ignorant "challenges" to the theory.



Brain size does not dictate intelligence; dolphins and elephants brain are bigger than human yet they are no more intelligent than humans.

I never said that they "dictate" intelligence. There are many competing facts, most notably, the ratio between the size of the brain to that of the body. A larger brain is required just to run a larger body. Again, your point is based on gross ignorance. The correlation between the brain/body mass ratio and intelligence is common knowledge amongst anyone who has any understanding of science.



I personally believe intelligence is related to the ability to know good and evil which no animals have except humans.

That is absurd. Though intelligence can be defined in many ways, some of which are probably unique to humans (like abstract thought), there also are many aspects that are seen in animals, such as problem solving. So your assertion that animals do not have intelligence is false. And besides, Adam and Eve could talk before they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, so your theory fails on that count too. It is ridiculous to say that Adam and Eve had no "intelligence" before they ate of the tree.



BTW, the debate between Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creation continues show that somethings are just not right with the theory of evolution.

That's not true. There is no "debate" with creationists. The creationist are merely ignorant of science and oppose truth because because it contradicts their false religious beliefs.



In fact, the concept of survival of the fittest can have negative impact. I suspect Hitler used such concept to propose his Germanic Super-race who he believed would ultimately dominate the world and thus his dream to conquer Europe and then the whole world.

So what? That has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of natural selection.



I am sorry that this thread have been side-tracked into a debate for Evolution vs Creation vs Intelligent Design; it was supposed to be Fun and Light-hearted. Perhaps, RAM can put these discussion into a new thread as I do hope others beside me and RAM can participate in this debate.

Yeah ... that's a good idea. I'll see if I can get to it later today.



BTW, what is Truth? Obviously, not human science.

Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life". Amen.:pray:
That's a category mistake. The Pythagorean Theorem is true. Does that mean that Jesus is the Pythagorean theorem?

Mad Mick
08-04-2011, 05:45 AM
Cheow baby, I'm back.
After no doubt, careful consideration, Richard showed me some grace and reinstated my membership.

You know while I was in the wilderness of one way traffic, I'd occasionally pop into the BW forum to catch up and got frustrated by not being able to comment. After leaving the odd message at Richard's door, he gave me another chance and for that I'm grateful.

Thanks RAM!

Regarding the Tower of Babel, if it were a myth 1 thing most people agree with is that behind most myths there is an element of truth.

Coming from the book of Genesis (where all of us here have concluded that intelligent design is layered within) I would be more prone to believe that the message behind the event was more important.

(Gen 11:6 The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.)

If Babel was Atlantis and it sunk, then the scattering makes sense.
It says they moved east, which could have been North America, Shina is similar to China, this plain could have very well been the sunken region in Bermuda.

As you may recall I strongly advocate that periods of history periodically keep repeating. This is strewn throughout the Bible. It's like we as a race are so stupid and stubborn, it takes multiple occurrences for us to eventually learn anything.

What is interesting is it finishes with verse 11: 9 That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Ring a bell? Same continent, towers falling down, same numbers in reverse 9,11. Yeah you could say there is some coincidence, but as 1 of todays most renowned agnostic scientists Prof Paul Davies quoted:

"Yes God plays dice . . . . . But, they're loaded!"

What we do notice is that the first half of the bible has symmetry with the last, which is most predominant with Genesis and Revelation.

Mick

CWH
08-04-2011, 08:00 AM
Cheow baby, I'm back.
After no doubt, careful consideration, Richard showed me some grace and reinstated my membership.

You know while I was in the wilderness of one way traffic, I'd occasionally pop into the BW forum to catch up and got frustrated by not being able to comment. After leaving the odd message at Richard's door, he gave me another chance and for that I'm grateful.

Thanks RAM!

Regarding the Tower of Babel, if it were a myth 1 thing most people agree with is that behind most myths there is an element of truth.

Coming from the book of Genesis (where all of us here have concluded that intelligent design is layered within) I would be more prone to believe that the message behind the event was more important.

(Gen 11:6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.)

If Babel was Atlantis and it sunk, then the scattering makes sense.
It says they moved east, which could have been North America, Shina is similar to China, this plain could have very well been the sunken region in Bermuda.

As you may recall I strongly advocate that periods of history periodically keep repeating. This is strewn throughout the Bible. It's like we as a race are so stupid and stubborn, it takes multiple occurrences for us to eventually learn anything.

What is interesting is it finishes with verse 11: 9 That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Ring a bell? Same continent, towers falling down, same numbers in reverse 9,11. Yeah you could say there is some coincidence, but as 1 of todays most renowned agnostic scientists Prof Paul Davies quoted:

"Yes God plays dice . . . . . But, they're loaded!"

What we do notice is that the first half of the bible has symmetry with the last, which is most predominant with Genesis and Revelation.

Mick

Welcome back, our prodigal brother. :welcome: But what took you so long?

Yes, I agree with you that intelligence is found everywhere in nature. Man have to learn form nature to understand its principle....fusion energy, aerodynamics, magnetism etc.

BTW. good discovery especially with the 11:9 coincidence with the Tower of Babel. I have missed that. In fact, I see the modern Tower of Babel as the United Nations building in which people of all languages and nations around the world gather together to discuss and co-operate and they could understand one another well through electronic interpreters as if using a single world language. And the United Nations is on the same continent and city as the Twin Tower! Will the United Nations one day fell just like the Tower of Babel?


What we do notice is that the first half of the bible has symmetry with the last, which is most predominant with Genesis and Revelation.
Yes, I have noticed that and written a post on it but I can't find this post now.


May the Grace and Love of God be with you and forevermore. Amen. :pray:

Mad Mick
08-04-2011, 09:05 AM
What took me so long?
I was banned.
It's only by grace that I'm here and for that I'm grateful.
Yeah at that time I was infuriated with some of the comments here,
which sealed my demise,
but to tell you the truth I really missed the interaction and inspiration I would get from answering posts.
There's a heap of great talent at this site and I really missed you guys and gals.

gilgal
08-04-2011, 09:53 AM
I think over time people's tongue changes. The American English is different than the British.

Even in the bible, in Judges the Ephraimites couldn't pronounce sh so instead of saying Shibboleth they said Sibboleth:

Judges 12:6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce [it] right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

Even from one city to another, one village to another the accent changes, the pronunciation changes.

The New York English, the Texan English, the Alabama English (I actually met a Greek Pastor from Alabama. I couldn't tell he was Greek)...

alec cotton
08-14-2011, 07:41 AM
Once again the donkey Darwen theory has raised its ugly head. Richard said that scientific theory is not opposed to facts. It most certainly is.' Scientists'' proclaim that all animals evolved gradually and by increments and accident. The fossil record clearly shows that it is not the case. When this subject was debated once before , Richard said that there were many transitional forms but could not name one That is ,because they do not exist. The pseudo scientists have made herculean efforts and spent astronomical amounts of money in their vain attempts to find a missing link.We won't start with the precambrian or cambrian periods because they might prove a little bit vague. Let's start with the ordovician. It lasted about 50 million years. In all that time , the livestock remained the same . At the end of that period Most of the recognisable life forms disappeared and vast numbers of new species were created. The Silurian period also lasted about 50 million years without any notable change in the animal or plant kingdom .At the end of that time , millions of animals were extinguished and a whole new raft of animals were created specifically designed to suit the new environment. Each of the nine or ten periods are instantly recognisable by the fossil remains in them . They did not change in fifty million years. It must be close on fifty million years since the beginning of the present era. We must be due another change . There is no logical reason to assume that the sequence has ended. The last time we trod this path ,Richard threw D.N.A in as a red herring . He did it again just now. It won't work. Last time it was clearly demonstrated that D.N.A and R.N.A have very definite numerical structures. . They both posses the qualities of determination,direction ,deliberation and purpose. It is totally inconceivable that any chemical could by any means attain obtain or aspire to such heights of intelligent behaviour. The God (Jehovah) of the bible created them . These are two of the tools which he uses to fulfil his purpose. It is no surprise to me that the marks of his tools can be clearly seen in the bodies of animals. This god is in control of every atom in the universe. The folly in this forum can be clearly seen in that there are those who claim that this god is incapable of having his thoughts ,words commands and instructions committed to paper and preserved precisely as he wishes. This God identified himself in the masculine. Who is man to differ and refer to the spirit as 'she' or 'it'? The two juxtaposed sound like 'shit 'and that about sums up the insult. Many seem to think of God as a big man up in the sky with a bag of goodies in one hand and a club in the other. That is not my concept of the master of the universe. Some : through prayer , seek to guide the hand of God . He is not my servant : I am his. Richard just said' The Pythagorean theory is true . Does that mean that Jesus is the Pythagorean theorem?' Such a statement and question are only worthy of a slime ball and a scoffer. The short answer is 'yes' . Because he created the world in which it exists and the mind which conceived it.
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough
08-14-2011, 09:26 AM
Once again the donkey Darwen theory has raised its ugly head. Richard said that scientific theory is not opposed to facts. It most certainly is.” Scientists”” proclaim that all animals evolved gradually and by increments and accident. The fossil record clearly shows that it is not the case. When this subject was debated once before , Richard said that there were many transitional forms but could not name one That is ,because they do not exist.

Alec,

I'm glad you came by for a visit, but I am dismayed by the falsehood of your comments. I never said there were no "transitional forms." That is absurd and false. There are endless transitional forms. You would know this if you took the time to do the slightest amount of research.

If you want the Bible to live by the sword of science, you run the risk that it also will die by it. You admit the fossil record shows that more complex organisms appeared as time progressed, you only deny the scientific explanation of how it happened. So welcome to the party - those facts are the fodder of evolutionary theory. You are trying to explain the fossil record which is exactly what the evolutionary scientists do. They debate how evolution happened. They have developed a "theory of evolution" to explain the FACT OF EVOLUTION.

I don't understand how you could fail to see that the details do not matter. The Bible does not say that God evolved organisms over millions of years. Therefore, the Bible does not explain the fossil record, no matter if there are or are not "transitional forms" or periods of rapid vs. gradual evolution. The fact of the fossil record itself contradict the Bible no matter how you cut it, so as soon as you admit the "fossil record" you have denied the Bible (assuming of course you are using a "literal" interpretation).

You deny that "all animals evolved gradually and by increments and accident" - that's fine! Maybe there were times it happened "quickly" or maybe God just went "ZAP" and periodically created new organisms once every million years or so. What are you claiming? Please share your theory of evolution. As far as I can tell, you deny the theories produced by thousands of professional peer-reviewed scientists but have not suggested any other theory that would explain the facts.



The pseudo scientists have made herculean efforts and spent astronomical amounts of money in their vain attempts to find a missing link.

That's ridiculous. There is no single "missing link." There are billions of links connecting all living creatures to each other. The whole phylogenetic tree of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree) is nothing but a testimony to the truth of evolution.

And this brings up the issue of common descent. Have you never read any scientific works on this issue? DNA gives strong evidence for this fact. I've asked you about this before, but I don't think you answered. What do you do with the DNA evidence that shows common descent?

And why are you so "anti-evolution" any way? You know that the Bible doesn't say a word about how animals evolved, and you know that animals of greater complexity appear over time "as if" they evolved. So why do you pit the Bible against these facts? I just don't get it.



The last time we trod this path ,Richard threw D.N.A in as a red herring . He did it again just now. It won't work. Last time it was clearly demonstrated that D.N.A and R.N.A have very definite numerical structures. . They both posses the qualities of determination,direction ,deliberation and purpose.

The DNA evidence is not a "red herring" and you still have failed to answer my question. What do you do with the DNA EVIDENCE that shows common descent?

As for the "numerical design" in the DNA, that has not been established. Folks are studying it but it is much too early to make any grand proclamations that it "proves" anything. You simply do not know that. And this shows that you are willing to admit only that which confirms your own prejudices. That is very sad. It shows that your mind is closed to truth. Is that not ironic? Christians claim to worship Christ as the Truth but then deny the Truth if it doesn't fit their own little prejudices? Remember, we are all ignorant of most things. Your opposition to truth and science is the worst aspect of religion.



It is totally inconceivable that any chemical could by any means attain obtain or aspire to such heights of intelligent behaviour. The God (Jehovah) of the bible created them . These are two of the tools which he uses to fulfil his purpose. It is no surprise to me that the marks of his tools can be clearly seen in the bodies of animals. This god is in control of every atom in the universe.

Many people would agree with you about the limitations of "chemicals." But I don't know of a single scientist who would say that a chemical "aspires" to anything, so your comment is a straw-man. It doesn't relate to any claims made by science.

As for Jehovah creating the chemicals ... that's GREAT! No problem, except ... uhhh ... except that the Bible says nothing about Jehovah creating ever more complex life forms over a period of millions of years. On the contrary, the Bible says God created all the animals in two days. :doh:



The folly in this forum can be clearly seen in that there are those who claim that this god is incapable of having his thoughts ,words commands and instructions committed to paper and preserved precisely as he wishes.

Dude - you are the one who declared that the book of Acts is WRONG because it contradicts your own personal doctrine relating to the Jews. Think about that for a while. You are the one who says "god is incapable of having his thoughts ,words commands and instructions committed to paper and preserved precisely as he wishes."



This God identified himself in the masculine. Who is man to differ and refer to the spirit as “she” or “it”? The two juxtaposed sound like “shit “and that about sums up the insult. Many seem to think of God as a big man up in the sky with a bag of goodies in one hand and a club in the other. That is not my concept of the master of the universe. Some : through prayer , seek to guide the hand of God . He is not my servant : I am his. Richard just said” The Pythagorean theory is true . Does that mean that Jesus is the Pythagorean theorem?” Such a statement and question are only worthy of a slime ball and a scoffer. The short answer is “yes” . Because he created the world in which it exists and the mind which conceived it.
Alec
So Jesus is the Pythagorean theorem! Brilliant! But I don't understand why you answered if my question is "only worthy of a slime ball and a scoffer."

And yes, I am a scoffer! I scoff at the bullshit religions invented by raving wolves so that they can weaken your mind while they feed on you! I scoff at the abject absurdity of "Christian apologetics" which does nothing but worship falsehood in the name of religion. I scoff at the "sacred institutions" designed to enslave the minds of humanity. I SCOFF! I SCOFF! I SCOFF!

CWH
08-15-2011, 06:07 PM
Sorry to interject for Alec. I am doing so in support of Alec.



[QUOTE]I don't understand how you could fail to see that the details do not matter. The Bible does not say that God evolved organisms over millions of years. Therefore, the Bible does not explain the fossil record, no matter if there are or are not "transitional forms" or periods of rapid vs. gradual evolution. The fact of the fossil record itself contradict the Bible no matter how you cut it, so as soon as you admit the "fossil record" you have denied the Bible (assuming of course you are using a "literal" interpretation).
There is nothing about evolution in the Bible is because there is no such thing as evolution.


As far as I can tell, you deny the theories produced by thousands of professional peer-reviewed scientists but have not suggested any other theory that would explain the facts.
Even the professionals were fallible and were hookwinked by the Piltdown man. And there are also thousands of professionals who reject the theory of evolution.


And this brings up the issue of common descent. Have you never read any scientific works on this issue? DNA gives strong evidence for this fact. I've asked you about this before, but I don't think you answered. What do you do with the DNA evidence that shows common descent?
How was DNA created in the first place? Is it easy to modify DNA to create a new species as easily as changing a few computer codes to create a new virus?

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html


And why are you so "anti-evolution" any way? You know that the Bible doesn't say a word about how animals evolved, and you know that animals of greater complexity appear over time "as if" they evolved. So why do you pit the Bible against these facts? I just don't get it.
Because there is no evolution. Even Charles Darwin seems to admit creationism during his deathbed. Based on the theory of evolution, which comes first the egg or the chicken?


The DNA evidence is not a "red herring" and you still have failed to answer my question. What do you do with the DNA EVIDENCE that shows common descent?
DNA shows chimpanzee are 98% human and Gorillas are 97% human doesn't shows common descent but shows that DNA can be manipulated to create a new species. So far no human have ever manipulate DNA to create a new species, I wonder why? If a car is 98% identical, can I say they are evolved from a common descent i.e. made from the same manufacturer?


As for the "numerical design" in the DNA, that has not been established. Folks are studying it but it is much too early to make any grand proclamations that it "proves" anything. You simply do not know that. And this shows that you are willing to admit only that which confirms your own prejudices. That is very sad. It shows that your mind is closed to truth. Is that not ironic? Christians claim to worship Christ as the Truth but then deny the Truth if it doesn't fit their own little prejudices? Remember, we are all ignorant of most things. Your opposition to truth and science is the worst aspect of religion.
Without the Creator, will there be Science? Science is everywhere in nature and human must study nature, aerodynamixs, fusion, magnetism, gravity etc. in order to understand science. In other words, science is actually the study of creation. That's exactly what Job said about wisdom and understanding in nature:

Job 28:20 Where then does wisdom come from?
Where does understanding dwell?
21 It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds in the sky.
22 Destruction and Death say,
“Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.”
23 God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
24 for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm,
27 then he looked at wisdom and appraised it;
he confirmed it and tested it.
28 And he said to the human race,
“The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.”


As for Jehovah creating the chemicals ... that's GREAT! No problem, except ... uhhh ... except that the Bible says nothing about Jehovah creating ever more complex life forms over a period of millions of years. On the contrary, the Bible says God created all the animals in [B]two days. :doh:
If God can create the earth, planets, stars and moon in a day, what is creating animals in 2 days. Creation of all animals is not something impossible. DNA is so small that all the world's animals and plants DNA can be stored in a size no bigger than the hand.


So Jesus is the Pythagorean theorem! Brilliant! But I don't understand why you answered if my question is "only worthy of a slime ball and a scoffer."
I wonder who created Pythagorus theorem? Obviously not Pythagorus who discovered it. There are many designs in nature based on mathematical formulas, I wonder how it came about...by magic? or by intelligence?


And yes, I am a scoffer! I scoff at the bullshit religions invented by raving wolves so that they can weaken your mind while they feed on you! I scoff at the abject absurdity of "Christian apologetics" which does nothing but worship falsehood in the name of religion. I scoff at the "sacred institutions" designed to enslave the minds of humanity. I SCOFF! I SCOFF! I SCOFF!
I hope you scoff at Preterism also since you hate Christianity so much.....unless of course if you are biased or if you don't see Preterism as Christian. The fool says in his heart, "there is no God"....I hope someone is not a fool.

Glory to God and His wisdom. Amen.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-15-2011, 08:31 PM
Sorry to interject for Alec. I am doing so in support of Alec.

I don't think there is any need to apologize. The conversation is open to all who would desire to contribute, and since you support Alec's point of view, I'm sure he would be happy to have your help.



There is nothing about evolution in the Bible is because there is no such thing as evolution.

Right! I should have known that! That's why there aren't any TVs or computers or cars or airplanes. They aren't mentioned in the Bible so they don't exist.

And now that I think about it, the Bible doesn't mention the CWH has brain ... and that explains everything!




As far as I can tell, you deny the theories produced by thousands of professional peer-reviewed scientists but have not suggested any other theory that would explain the facts.
Even the professionals were fallible and were hookwinked by the Piltdown man. And there are also thousands of professionals who reject the theory of evolution.
All people are "fallible" so that means nothing and is entirely irrelevant. If evolution depended on a single forgery like the Piltdown man, then you might have a case. But the reality is nothing like that, and you suggestion is absurd and ignorant. There are many independent lines of evidence supporting the fact of evolution. The two strongest are the DNA evidence that shows common descent and the phylogenetic tree of life.

And as for the "thousands of professionals" who reject evolution, I offer you Project Steve (http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve). :lmbo:




And this brings up the issue of common descent. Have you never read any scientific works on this issue? DNA gives strong evidence for this fact. I've asked you about this before, but I don't think you answered. What do you do with the DNA evidence that shows common descent?
How was DNA created in the first place? Is it easy to modify DNA to create a new species as easily as changing a few computer codes to create a new virus?

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html (http://www.cs.unc.edu/%7Eplaisted/ce/junk.html)

The origin of DNA is a mystery, but that is irrelevant because the Bible doesn't say that God created DNA and then let it evolve over millions of years. So even if we could prove that God created DNA, it wouldn't prove that the Bible and Christianity is true. That's what you fail to understand.

As for your link challenging the DNA evidence, here is a refutation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/plaisted.html

The article you cited is pretty typical of most Christian apologetics. He doesn't challenge only evolution and biology, but astronomy, cosmology, and geology. This is the problem with folks who think they can reject science. All the different branches are integrated because the universe is an integrated whole. Thus, if they attack one part of science, they inevitably must attack all science, and so they reveal themselves as cranks who ignore truth and reality. It's really pathetic. The same science that produced the computer you use to post on this forum is integrated with the science that produced evolution. If you irrationally deny one part because of nothing but your religious beliefs, you end up make a colossal fool of yourself.



Because there is no evolution. Even Charles Darwin seems to admit creationism during his deathbed. Based on the theory of evolution, which comes first the egg or the chicken?
Ha! :hysterical: You can't tell a hoax? You can't take 10 seconds on Google to learn the truth before you make you absurd claims? The "Darwin's deathbed" story has been debunked for decades. Even the ultra-moronic creationist site "Answers in Genesis" has an article debunking this ridiculous lie that was propagated by, you guessed it, "Christians" -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend

Will you never choose truth? I thought you were supposedly a "Christian." Are all Christians as gullible as you?




The DNA evidence is not a "red herring" and you still have failed to answer my question. What do you do with the DNA EVIDENCE that shows common descent?
DNA shows chimpanzee are 98% human and Gorillas are 97% human doesn't shows common descent but shows that DNA can be manipulated to create a new species. So far no human have ever manipulate DNA to create a new species, I wonder why? If a car is 98% identical, can I say they are evolved from a common descent i.e. made from the same manufacturer?

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you don't even know how DNA supports the idea of common descent. The argument is not merely about how much DNA we have in common. It has to do with non-functional genes we SHARE with other primates. There is no explanation for those common non-functional genes unless we inherited them from a common ancestor.



Without the Creator, will there be Science? Science is everywhere in nature and human must study nature, aerodynamixs, fusion, magnetism, gravity etc. in order to understand science. In other words, science is actually the study of creation.

Yes, there will still be Science. And no, science is not the study of "creation" - it is the study of the natural world. And you have not said anything that shows why God is necessary for science, and all science has been created by either implicitly or explicitly excluding the idea of God. Scientists are free to believe in God of course, but their beliefs are never a part of their science because the methods of science assume that they can explain things in terms of natural laws that do not involve any supernatural gods or demons or witchcraft or any such nonsense.

This is why you can't argue against science. It used to be that people believed God and angels or demons were responsible for everything from getting pregnant to getting sick and earthquakes and weather and everything. But now science explains all those things, so Christians and Muslims have to look for little "gaps" in our knowledge so they can say "See! You don't know how DNA formed, so God did it!" But that's just bad logic. It's called the "God of the gaps" argument, and the thing is, the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller so the "god" that lives only in those gaps keeps getting pushed further and further away from any relevance.



If God can create the earth, planets, stars and moon in a day, what is creating animals in 2 days. Creation of all animals is not something impossible. DNA is so small that all the world's animals and plants DNA can be stored in a size no bigger than the hand.

Dude, you just are not following the logic. I didn't say God could not create the animals in two days. I said that we have solid evidence that he did not do it in two days. Everyone knows this because we have a very long fossil record that shows the creatures currently alive were not here a million years ago. Whether they evolved or if God created them doesn't matter for this point. The POINT is that they were not all created during "two days."



I wonder who created Pythagorus theorem? Obviously not Pythagorus who discovered it. There are many designs in nature based on mathematical formulas, I wonder how it came about...by magic?

So you think that God "created" the idea that 3x3 + 4x4 = 5x5 (the simplest whole number example of a Pythagorean triangle). I don't think you understand mathematics if you think God is free to make 1 + 2 = 7.4.



I hope you scoff at Preterism also since you hate Christianity so much.....unless of course if you are biased or if you don't see Preterism as Christian. The fool says in his heart, "there is no God"....I hope someone is not a fool.

Have I ever said I have Christianity? Nope. There isn't even a single religion known as "Christianity" so there's no one thing for me to "hate." But I do hate what people have done in the name of Christianity, and that's what I was talking about. And I hate the way it destroys peoples minds, like it has done to yours. You are not rational in these discussion. You say things that are ridiculous as if you don't care about truth at all. I find your hatred of truth very disturbing.

Finally, as for Preterism - I continue to be utterly amazed by your attack against what the Bible plainly states. You destroy any testimony the Bible could have. I've told you before and I'll tell you again: Preterism is one of the strongest proofs of the Bible that there is. The fact that Futurists attack it justifies the atheists who rejects it as the Word of God because you prove that the words it contains mean nothing when you deny things as plain and obvious and fundamental as the fact that John the Baptist fulfilled the Elijah prophecy.

Please listen CWH. Your posts are degenerating into absurdity. It's on fun answering you. I started this forum for intelligent discussion, but you write things that are really crazy. And then when you are refuted, you don't admit the truth and just make up more crazy things. Don't you want to support Christianity with good arguments? Aren't you embarrassed to write so many things that are so obviously false and foolish? It doesn't have to be like this. I really hope you will choose to seek REAL TRUTH. You don't have to agree with me! I'm as fallible as anyone. But how will I ever be able to learn anything from you if you keep writing things that just aren't true?

All the best.

alec cotton
08-17-2011, 08:37 AM
Hello Richard
I am back again. As a rule, I try to use as few words as possible but you choose to brush them aside and demand meticulous explanation. When you are asked to do the same you refer the interrogator to some authority or other . Now I ask you to dot every i and cross every t in response to these comments and questions I said that dna and rna were two of the tools which God used , I thought the the metaphor would have been readily understood. When you write the word' EVOLUTION' : What you really mean or imply is , the Darwen theory of evolution by the (accidental) selection of the species.That is totally different from the general meaning of the word. Now let us consider the absurd notion that D.N.A arose spontaneously without the intervention of (dare I say it?) Almighty God. The dumb darwenists declare that life sprang spontaneously from the primordial ocean. .O K Let's have a closer look. In the primordial soup there just happened to be strands of phosphorous ( not unusual) Somewhere along the line some molecules of thymine just happened to be attracted to the phosphorous atoms in a peculiar way. So far : just barely possible . Now conveniently , there were four other sugar compounds dissolved in the water. Theses molecules then attached themselves to the uracil bases in a very special way . NO WAY. The absurdity now descends into farce. Somewhere ,possibly thousands of miles away in the same ocean the same thing was happening. After millions of years , the different strands met and merged. Now , by purest chance ,they happened to congeal in such a way as to form a letter of an infinitely complex code . Of course D.N.A on its own is useless. It needs a counterpart in order to function. Now it so happened that in another part. Of the world that a similar scene was being enacted except that uracil was the base instead of thymine. After a period of time , these two met and merged . Then a strange thing happened . They happily wrapped themselves round a suitable molecule of protein and the first bacterium had arrived. I can only think of one appropriate adjective , one suitable expletive . Bullshit. If you believe that ,then you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. And now for a quote from your post



That's not true. I have given you much evidence, but you did not respond. For example, I told you that DNA evidence supports the idea of common descent, but you did not respond. And besides, you are being dishonest because we both know that you do not want any "proof" and you will not accept any evidence no matter how strong it is.
That is an old trick and used all the time . . It is sometimes called misdirection. First you say that D.N.A supports the notion of common descent and then you use the word proof to imply that it was an established fact when in truth it was only conjecture in the first place. The conclusions are plainly wrong. To say that because a monkey has the same genetic markers as a man means that men were descended from monkeys is like saying that a man must be a potato because he has a jacket. The D.N.A of of monkeys must be more than 90% similar to that of man because of the similarity of structure. Millions of markers must be similar if not identical because they indicate the form , colour, structure and al the finest details. I have said this before and I will say it again : There is no conflict between the bible and true science. True science is Knowledge from inquiry . Modern science is Theory from speculation. I read the bible for myself and draw my own conclusions. I have never thought that Adam was the first human on earth ,not by a million yrs. Lets have a look at genesis for a minute. In the beginning the earth was without form and void. It was a mass of gas in the vastness of space. God projected a mental image into the formless mass and the mass assumed the shape of the image. That agrees roughly with the limited observations which are possible today. If God had used the technical language of 2050 A.D who could have understood it?. The geological record and the fossil record are in accord with the account. Life began in the sea and the plants on the land. . But before that it was so turbulent that it was impossible know sea from sky. Then the birds appeared . Next the animals After hundreds of millions of years ,mankind appeared. You insist that there are many transitional forms . You cannot name one . You cynically said that maybe there was a change every million years or so . NO ! The change occurred every fifty million years on average and the change was so sudden and dramatic that it left an indelible mark in the record set in stone. It is so definitive that the rocks are identifiable by the fossils which they contain. Now : You tell me of one definitive fossil which shows a transition from one specie to another in any fifty million year geological period. It exists only in the imagination of fools. The dinosaurs could not exist without the worms beneath their feet. The worms could not exist without the protozoa to support then and the protozoa are dependant on bacteria. God is in control of every atom in the universe. Do you deny that fact?. This same spirit is perfectly capable of directing events and having his ideas recorded on paper. Can you give me one reason to suppose that the sequence of destruction and regeneration has ended?.
To those who do not believe , no explanation is possible. To those who believe no explanation is needed.
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough
08-17-2011, 09:45 AM
Hello Richard
I am back again. As a rule, I try to use as few words as possible but you choose to brush them aside and demand meticulous explanation. When you are asked to do the same you refer the interrogator to some authority or other . Now I ask you to dot every i and cross every t in response to these comments and questions I said that dna and rna were two of the tools which God used , I thought the the metaphor would have been readily understood. When you write the word” EVOLUTION” : What you really mean or imply is , the Darwen theory of evolution by the (accidental) selection of the species.That is totally different from the general meaning of the word. Now let us consider the absurd notion that D.N.A arose spontaneously without the intervention of (dare I say it?) Almighty God. The dumb darwenists declare that life sprang spontaneously from the primordial ocean. .O K Let's have a closer look. In the primordial soup there just happened to be strands of phosphorous ( not unusual) Somewhere along the line some molecules of thymine just happened to be attracted to the phosphorous atoms in a peculiar way. So far : just barely possible . Now conveniently , there were four other sugar compounds dissolved in the water. Theses molecules then attached themselves to the uracil bases in a very special way . NO WAY. The absurdity now descends into farce. Somewhere ,possibly thousands of miles away in the same ocean the same thing was happening. After millions of years , the different strands met and merged. Now , by purest chance ,they happened to congeal in such a way as to form a letter of an infinitely complex code . Of course D.N.A on its own is useless. It needs a counterpart in order to function. Now it so happened that in another part. Of the world that a similar scene was being enacted except that uracil was the base instead of thymine. After a period of time , these two met and merged . Then a strange thing happened . They happily wrapped themselves round a suitable molecule of protein and the first bacterium had arrived. I can only think of one appropriate adjective , one suitable expletive . Bullshit. If you believe that ,then you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. And now for a quote from your post

Good morning Alec,

It is unfortunate that you did not read my previous post. You could have saved yourself all the time it took to type those words. You are preaching to the choir. I have already conceded the fact that we do not know how DNA arose and that it is one of the great mysteries in the history of life. Here is what I wrote:
The origin of DNA is a mystery, but that is irrelevant because the Bible doesn't say that God created DNA and then let it evolve over millions of years. So even if we could prove that God created DNA, it wouldn't prove that the Bible and Christianity is true. That's what you fail to understand.
As I said, the origin of DNA it is irrelevant to this discussion. This is because the Bible does not say that God created DNA and then slowly created all the living creatures over a period of millions of years in a sequential way (from the simpler to the more complex) that mimics "evolution."

Furthermore, there is a fundamental error in your definition of evolution. You wrote: "the Darwen theory of evolution by the (accidental) selection of the species" - there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant. Anyone who knows anything about the real science of evolution would laugh at such comments as comically ignorant. It's one thing to oppose Darwinian evolution, but you can't successfully do that if you are ignorant of it's very definition!




That's not true. I have given you much evidence, but you did not respond. For example, I told you that DNA evidence supports the idea of common descent, but you did not respond. And besides, you are being dishonest because we both know that you do not want any "proof" and you will not accept any evidence no matter how strong it is.

That is an old trick and used all the time . . It is sometimes called misdirection. First you say that D.N.A supports the notion of common descent and then you use the word proof to imply that it was an established fact when in truth it was only conjecture in the first place.

That's ridiculous Alec. There was no misdirection. I did not switch from saying there was "evidence" to saying there was "proof." I never asserted it was proven. I put "proof" in quotes because I was talking about your request for "evidence/proof" that you don't really want. Talk about "misdirection!" You missed the whole point of my words. You do not want to know the truth on the question of evolution because you only want to hold to the dogmas you think the Bible teaches. So you are pitting your private religious beliefs based on nothing but ancient words in an ancient book against Science. Good luck with that one ...



The conclusions are plainly wrong. To say that because a monkey has the same genetic markers as a man means that men were descended from monkeys is like saying that a man must be a potato because he has a jacket. The D.N.A of of monkeys must be more than 90% similar to that of man because of the similarity of structure. Millions of markers must be similar if not identical because they indicate the form , colour, structure and al the finest details.

You have failed to understand the argument. I was not talking about the number of shared genes. I was talking about the kind of DNA evidence used in courts to identify paternity. There are unique patterns in the DNA that allow us to trace ancestry. It is accepted by the courts, and is used to impose capital punishment. So here you are rejecting all this science that has been established on solid verifiable facts all because it contradicts your personal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago by people utterly ignorant of the most basic science? That's just plain NUTS.



I have said this before and I will say it again : There is no conflict between the bible and true science. True science is Knowledge from inquiry . Modern science is Theory from speculation. I read the bible for myself and draw my own conclusions. I have never thought that Adam was the first human on earth ,not by a million yrs.

That's just great Alec. You are a "lone wolf" and you have in your possession a book written thousands of years ago in foreign languages that have to be translated for you by experts because you couldn't do it yourself, and you take that strange foreign book written by shepherds of the Bronze age and you "draw your own conclusions" that directly contradict the peer-reviewed conclusions of ten thousand professional scientists? There are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks. Unfortunately, we both know you don't fit into the first category. You have absolutely no foundation for your rejection of evolution. You can't even accurately state the fundamental premises of the theory! Your obstinate opposition to something you don't even understand is absurd to the highest degree.



Lets have a look at genesis for a minute. In the beginning the earth was without form and void. It was a mass of gas in the vastness of space. God projected a mental image into the formless mass and the mass assumed the shape of the image. That agrees roughly with the limited observations which are possible today. If God had used the technical language of 2050 A.D who could have understood it?.

God had an infinite number of choices about how he wanted to communicate the truth of creation. So why then did he choose to use the false cosmology of the Bronze age? Isn't it a little odd for the Omniscient Lord to use such absurd falsehoods that just happen to be what the ignorant and primitive people would have said without inspiration? Why did he use the pattern of the three-tiered universe with a solid dome "firmament" holding up the "waters" that were above? There's no water up there. There's no solid dome firmament. And God didn't even initially create "the heavens and the earth!" The earth wasn't created until some 9 billion years after the "heavens." Fundamentalist Christians have been trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with the facts of modern science for decades and have failed completely.



The geological record and the fossil record are in accord with the account. Life began in the sea and the plants on the land. . But before that it was so turbulent that it was impossible know sea from sky. Then the birds appeared . Next the animals After hundreds of millions of years ,mankind appeared.

Well, at least you got the last part correct - it did take millions of years for the birds and other animals to appear. But the rest is ridiculous. The Bible says the sun and moon and stars were "made" on the Fourth Day. But this contradicts all science, so you invent the silly idea that God just made them "visible" on the "fourth day." So again, we see Christian "apologists" implying that God is such a moron he couldn't even say what he meant in the Bible, and we had to wait for some dimwitted human to come along and ADD WORDS TO THE TEXT to create a "plausible" explanation to fix the breach between Science and the Bible. Is there any reason anyone should believe such an obviously contradictory and absurd story? You can't claim that the Bible is from an Omniscient God and then go about "fixing" his obviously erroneous book! Your entire program is self-contradictory and self-defeating.





You insist that there are many transitional forms . You cannot name one .

If you wanted the truth, you could spend the rest of your life documenting "transitional forms." But you don't want the truth, so there's no need for me to present it again.



You cynically said that maybe there was a change every million years or so . NO ! The change occurred every fifty million years on average and the change was so sudden and dramatic that it left an indelible mark in the record set in stone. It is so definitive that the rocks are identifiable by the fossils which they contain.

You have made this assertion many times, but I have no idea where you got it from. Please cite your source so I can verify it. I'm pretty sure you have mangled the facts.

alec cotton
08-18-2011, 11:34 AM
QUOTE!


If you wanted the truth, you could spend the rest of your life documenting "transitional forms." But you don't want the truth, so there's no need for me to present it again.
Quote:

Originally Posted by alec cotton
You cynically said that maybe there was a change every million years or so . NO ! The change occurred every fifty million years on average and the change was so sudden and dramatic that it left an indelible mark in the record set in stone. It is so definitive that the rocks are identifiable by the fossils which they contain.

You have made this assertion many times, but I have no idea where you got it from. Please cite your source so I can verify it. I'm pretty sure you have mangled the facts.

The first part is an obvious evasion, intended to obscure the truth . I challenge you now to name one
'transitional form' and the source of your information so that I can check it.

As for the second part ; I will most gladly cite my source. Look in any book on geology or fossils and you will see a list of the geological periods ; When they began , when they ended and the fossil remains which are always found in them . Older rocks are overlaid by younger rocks .In every single case : The older rocks contain fossils which do not occur in the younger rocks . The younger rocks contain the remains of animals which never existed in the previous 50 million years. They allways appear fully formed and perfectly adapted to conditions of the day. There is no transitional period. If you can't be bothered doing that , then look in your dictionary.DEVONIAN (period).of or relating to the fourth period of the palaeozoic with evidence of the first amphibians and tree forests.
JURASSIC .0f or pertaining to the second period of the mesozoic era with evidence of many large dinosaurs , the first birds ( including archaeopterix) , and mammals. All these appear suddenly, fully formed, fully fledged and ready for action with nothing in between . They remained that way without change for fifty million years and disappeared without trace. Check it out

QUOTE

- there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant

If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2011, 12:38 PM
I challenge you now to name one “transitional form” and the source of your information so that I can check it.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea how rich the fossil record is. We have millions of transitional forms. Here's an overview of the evidence and a solid refutation of your false assertions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=related



As for the second part ; I will most gladly cite my source. Look in any book on geology or fossils and you will see a list of the geological periods ; When they began , when they ended and the fossil remains which are always found in them . Older rocks are overlaid by younger rocks .In every single case : The older rocks contain fossils which do not occur in the younger rocks . The younger rocks contain the remains of animals which never existed in the previous 50 million years. They allways appear fully formed and perfectly adapted to conditions of the day. There is no transitional period. If you can't be bothered doing that , then look in your dictionary.DEVONIAN (period).of or relating to the fourth period of the palaeozoic with evidence of the first amphibians and tree forests.
JURASSIC .0f or pertaining to the second period of the mesozoic era with evidence of many large dinosaurs , the first birds ( including archaeopterix) , and mammals. All these appear suddenly, fully formed, fully fledged and ready for action with nothing in between . They remained that way without change for fifty million years and disappeared without trace. Check it out

That's what I thought - you''v mangled the evidence beyond recognition. There are not "50 million year" periods void of any evolution. That's ridiculous. Those periods are just rough outlines. They are not even well defined.




- there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant

If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.

That's a false dichotomy. Many things are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." Things that happen according to natural laws like gravity and electricity are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." The are simply "determined" by the natural laws and initial conditions. Now it is true that you could think of the initial conditions as "accidental" but that's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Your statements indicate that you simply do not understand the basic elements of evolution. Suppose a creature had an "accidental" mutation that gave it slightly longer legs so it could run a bit faster. Natural selection means that it would be "selected for" and it's competitors would be "selected against" because they lost. The mutation was accidental, but the "natural selection" was not. Given your confusion on this most basic of all evolutionary concepts, I have no reason to believe you know what you are talking about. This is confirmed by your "cranky" attitude you exhibit when you reject ten thousand professional scientists and their millions of physical observations as if you had any such knowledge to justify such a grand dismissal. Like I said, there are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks.

alec cotton
08-20-2011, 09:38 AM
That is one transparent apology. of course evolution is not called accidental If it was it would be too transparent. You offer two feeble excuses. One is that the Darwen theory is not called accidental . You say that my dichotomy is wrong . That's rich. let the reader judge. An incident which occurs withot planning is an accident. When an unfortunate incident occurs by chance we call it an accident. The theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance. In common english usage , that means , by accident. Now if you are capable of judging any thing , you have two choices. Did the development occur by accident or design?:By chance or by choice. ?. Of course the dates are only estimates but the facts speak for themselves I was once watching a documentery on T.V. about the grand canyon.There was a well worn path which people could descend. At one stage , the guide stopped and addressed the group Behind them I distinctly saw the fossilised head of a tricerotops. It was almost at river level.I thought " these rocks must be Jurassic because that is when that animal appeared The rocks which these rocks sit on are either triassic or permian. All rocks are identified by the fossil remains in them . It is obvious that there were millions of trierotops in the word at the beginning of the jurassic . I have just provided the evidence. On the video which you reccomended the "expert" stated (quite rightly ) that for an animal to be preserved is very rare. Now your "expert " stated that there are thousand of intermediate species but failed to name one. Now here is a chance to take the acid test , but neither he nor any other group or organisation will make it or take it because it would be proof positive that they are wrong.If a group or team of geologists were to go to the deep part of the grand canyon and take samples of the rocks and fossils found all the way to the top they would discover that they remained unchanged throughout the whole period. When faced with the sticky problem of the terrible twins; D.N. A. and R.N.A. You say that you don't know how life started What the hell are you doing here then: Rambling on about how it developed in minute detail. Now , come clean. Do you believe that life started by chance or do you believe that it was orchestrated . Do you believe that it bumbld and stumbled on aimlessly or do you believe that it was directed.
Alec

CWH
08-25-2011, 04:35 AM
The oldest fossil found are 3.4 billion years old bacteria which were already well developed in such a short time since the formation of the earth. How could this be if based on the theory of evolution and natural selection? Where are the transitional stage of molecules combining to form life? It thus suggests intelligent design and creation and not magic. I don't understand how intelligent people can believe life can formed by itself as if by magic?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/surprisingly_soon_archaean_mic049921.html

Excerpt:
Time Isn't On Their Side
What are the implications of these findings for the debate about intelligent design? Materialists often suggest that blind and unguided chemical reactions -- cheered on by electricity, heat, other forms of energy, and vast eons of time -- spontaneously formed a self-replicating molecule which then evolved through unguided processes into life as we know it. Origin of life theorist George Wald captured the spirit of this perspective in a paper written in 1955:

Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.6

As we've seen, life could not have existed on earth when the earth first formed because the early earth was a hostile place as a result of impacts during the heavy bombardment period. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould explains that, contrary to Wald, the amount of time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited:
Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life.7
Likewise origin-of-life theorist Cyril Ponnamperuma stated "we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."8.

The new reports of early microfossils from the Archaean provide more evidence confirming that life existed very soon after the earth became hospitable to life.


Glory to God's creation! Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2011, 12:00 PM
The oldest fossil found are 3.4 billion years old bacteria which were already well developed in such a short time since the formation of the earth. How could this be if based on the theory of evolution and natural selection? Where are the transitional stage of molecules combining to form life? It thus suggests intelligent design and creation and not magic. I don't understand how intelligent people can believe life can formed by itself as if by magic?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/surprisingly_soon_archaean_mic049921.html

Excerpt:
Time Isn't On Their Side
What are the implications of these findings for the debate about intelligent design? Materialists often suggest that blind and unguided chemical reactions -- cheered on by electricity, heat, other forms of energy, and vast eons of time -- spontaneously formed a self-replicating molecule which then evolved through unguided processes into life as we know it. Origin of life theorist George Wald captured the spirit of this perspective in a paper written in 1955:

Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.6

As we've seen, life could not have existed on earth when the earth first formed because the early earth was a hostile place as a result of impacts during the heavy bombardment period. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould explains that, contrary to Wald, the amount of time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited:
Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life.7
Likewise origin-of-life theorist Cyril Ponnamperuma stated "we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."8.

The new reports of early microfossils from the Archaean provide more evidence confirming that life existed very soon after the earth became hospitable to life.


Glory to God's creation! Amen. :pray:
The fact that there is no physical evidence that you yourself began as a single cell that divided into trillions of cells over a period of nine months in your mother's womb does not imply that you were magically created by God as a full grown human being. The same goes for our knowledge of our own origins. Lack of knowledge does not prove God. Sorry. But even if it did prove God, it would not prove the Christian God because the Bible does not say that God created life 4.5 billion years ago.

Have a nice day!

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2011, 12:54 PM
- there is no theory of "accidental" selection! It's called "natural selection" and there is nothing "accidental" about it. Your words are grossly ignorant.


If it not accidental then it must be deliberate . If deliberate , then directed . If directed then who is the director?. Check it out!.

That's a false dichotomy. Many things are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." Things that happen according to natural laws like gravity and electricity are neither "accidental" nor "deliberate." The are simply "determined" by the natural laws and initial conditions. Now it is true that you could think of the initial conditions as "accidental" but that's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Your statements indicate that you simply do not understand the basic elements of evolution. Suppose a creature had an "accidental" mutation that gave it slightly longer legs so it could run a bit faster. Natural selection means that it would be "selected for" and it's competitors would be "selected against" because they lost. The mutation was accidental, but the "natural selection" was not. Given your confusion on this most basic of all evolutionary concepts, I have no reason to believe you know what you are talking about. This is confirmed by your "cranky" attitude you exhibit when you reject ten thousand professional scientists and their millions of physical observations as if you had any such knowledge to justify such a grand dismissal. Like I said, there are words for people who do things like that - they are either the greatest of geniuses or kookiest of cranks.


That is one transparent apology. of course evolution is not called accidental If it was it would be too transparent. You offer two feeble excuses. One is that the Darwen theory is not called accidental . You say that my dichotomy is wrong . That's rich. let the reader judge. An incident which occurs withot planning is an accident. When an unfortunate incident occurs by chance we call it an accident. The theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance. In common english usage , that means , by accident.

Hey there Alec,

The problem is caused by your sloppy use of language. If you want to debate a scientific theory, you need to speak precisely. You incorrectly referred to "natural selection" as "accidental selection." This indicates that you are grossly ignorant of the theory. Your description of natural selection is like saying that it would be merely "accidental" that a gambler would roll snakes eyes once in every 36 throws on average. You ignore the fact that there are underlying physical laws that determine the one in 36 frequency.

And now you are changing your story and saying that the "theory plainly claims that the changes occurred by chance." First it was the selection process that you called "accidental" and now it is the "changes." It is true that some "changes" - such as the random mutations in the genome - are "accidental." That is common knowledge. But it does not imply that evolution as a whole is "accidental." Case in point, the process of "natural selection" is not "accidental." If you had sufficient knowledge about the differences amongst all members of a given population you could calculate an excellent estimation of how many of each would survive.

Perhaps an analogy would help. Suppose you took a bunch of iron filings and tossed them on a piece of paper with a magnet underneath. Would the iron filings make a random pattern? No! Why not? Because their is a non-random magnetic field that determines their position. This is just like evolution - it has random elements like mutation and non-random elements like natural selection. Simple as that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Magnet0873.png



Now if you are capable of judging any thing , you have two choices. Did the development occur by accident or design?:By chance or by choice. ?.

That is a false dichotomy because it ignores that non-random nature of natural laws. Who "chose" the pattern of the iron filings? No one. They were determined by chance and natural law. Simple as that.



Of course the dates are only estimates but the facts speak for themselves I was once watching a documentery on T.V. about the grand canyon.There was a well worn path which people could descend. At one stage , the guide stopped and addressed the group Behind them I distinctly saw the fossilised head of a tricerotops. It was almost at river level.I thought " these rocks must be Jurassic because that is when that animal appeared The rocks which these rocks sit on are either triassic or permian. All rocks are identified by the fossil remains in them . It is obvious that there were millions of trierotops in the word at the beginning of the jurassic . I have just provided the evidence.

Yes, you provided evidence ... evidence for evolution, that is. Thanks!



On the video which you reccomended the "expert" stated (quite rightly ) that for an animal to be preserved is very rare. Now your "expert " stated that there are thousand of intermediate species but failed to name one. Now here is a chance to take the acid test , but neither he nor any other group or organisation will make it or take it because it would be proof positive that they are wrong.If a group or team of geologists were to go to the deep part of the grand canyon and take samples of the rocks and fossils found all the way to the top they would discover that they remained unchanged throughout the whole period.

Your assertion is simply false. Granted, there are lines in evolutionary development that look "punctuated" but it is not generally the case. There are many smooth transitions. Your whole line of argumentation is irrelevant anyway because the evidence you site is the evidence for evolution - punctuated or not! Don't you get it? You are admitting that the fossil record shows that creatures developed from the simpler to the more complex over millions of years. You say there are some problems with the theory of exactly how this happened. SO WHAT??? You have confirmed fact of evolution, and are disputing only the theory of how it happened. I think that's great! If you think you have found some authentic error in the theory of evolution, there will be thousands of evolutionary scientists who would be most delighted to review your thesis. But if you think that a mere problem with the theory somehow contradicts the fact of evolution, then you don't even know what you are talking about because you are using the fact of evolution as the basis of your argument!



When faced with the sticky problem of the terrible twins; D.N. A. and R.N.A. You say that you don't know how life started What the hell are you doing here then: Rambling on about how it developed in minute detail. Now , come clean. Do you believe that life started by chance or do you believe that it was orchestrated . Do you believe that it bumbld and stumbled on aimlessly or do you believe that it was directed.
Alec
Your demand that I have a "belief" about the origin of life is like demanding that a geologist have a "belief" about the cosmological process that formed the planet. Obviously, that is absurd. You can do your geology all day long without having any "belief" in the truth or falsehood of the nebular hypothesis.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to have a "belief" about how life originated. But I do have sufficient knowledge to believe that evolution is a fact and that the evidence strongly suggests common descent of all living organisms.

Have a great day!

alec cotton
08-26-2011, 11:26 AM
Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . That seems a stupid statement on the face of it. Many things in the Bible seem absurd at first sight . What it really means is ,'observe the animals and their behaviour and you will recognise my influence. Look closely , use your judgement and draw accurate conclusions. I am dismayed many times by the attitudes of fools who take the name of Christ and are convinced that they have power and authority to heal the sick and raise the dead . It is very often no more than presumption and assumption . They assume that the spirit of god is at their command and all they have to to is say the word and it is done. You hear them say ' I command this sickness to leave ' or something like that . Many years ago we lived in a run down house which was infested with cockroaches . A local preacher called and when he saw the problem he said to my father-in-law ' You should have faith and COMMAND those cockroaches to leave.' My father-in- law said ,' I'm not going to get down on my hands and knees and tell the cockroaches to bugger off.' I am told to use the academic , scientific approach. It does not work . It can't work and those who demand it don't use it. There seems to be some confusion between evolution and Darwen's theory of evolution. It is obvious that developments were by increments . That is observable. It is also observable that every creature is dependant on every other creature for it's existence; from the microbe to the mammoth,from the amoeba to the antelope. If one of the vital species ( such as the worm) was to be extinct overnight , then all life would end very shortly. It can be readily observed and proved under controlled conditions that all animals are imbued with just sufficient intelligence to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. Fools will retort 'That's nature' . Of course it's nature . Nature is God. I choose to believe in the God of the bible.
The choice has proved to be a good one . The words have often been verified and the choice justified. I am often at variance with the academics. Just nowI am considering Septarian Nodules.. I have been well acquainted with them for many many years. Recently, I bought a few. Two were local and one from Taiwan. On close examination I decided that they were not nodules at all . I have a very strong feeling that they are organic in origin. Now the text books tell me that coal was formed by ancient forests turning into peat and the peat slowly turning into coal. Wrong, wrong wrong . I worked at the coal face for two years and never saw one fossil in a piece of coal. I don't say they don't exist . Just that in the hundreds of tons of coal that were on my shovel ,I never saw a fossil .They proliferated in the rock which formed the roof. There were thousands in the floor under the coal but none in the coal itself . Now why is that? . If the 'experts' are right , then there should be masses of fossilised material in the coal . Now it is my turn to speculate and theorise. My assumptions are based on observation the coal mine roof we would always be on the lookout for signs in the roof. A circle , about two feet across , we called a 'slip'. It was a line , about the thickness of a pencil line.It was ,in fact , all that remained of a tree like plant . The core was solid rock. The coating was coal, The greasy coal failed to grip the surrounding rock and so there was a real danger of it slipping out and crushing a man. The other danger was a 'roll'. Rolls were long parallel lines about two feet apart. This was a tree lying on its side. These plants never extended into the coal. Why?. Because the coal , at that time was liquid . It was oil. It was a sea of oil. Now let us take a step back and look at the rock. In the mines where I worked , the rock was like slate . When you split it,it the imprint of ferns in it. That is all they are: imprints. The plants were covered in oil . The waters were muddy with fine ash . Modern researchers have all the opportunities that I could only dream about . They could go down to the bottom of a coal mine shaft . They could take samples of the rock all the way to the top. They could examine the fossils and see if there was any change. They could date the rocks from radiation techniques. They could find out how long it was between the deposit of one seam to another. They could calculate how long the period was and much more. They will never do it because if they do they will have egg on their face. The same thing applies to the grand canyon , In places it is a mile deep. ( Encyclopaedia Britannica) Anybody can take samples from bottom to top and draw conclusions . I can' be bothered writing all the details . That is Just a rough outline
Alec

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2011, 12:14 PM
Ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me . That seems a stupid statement on the face of it. Many things in the Bible seem absurd at first sight . What it really means is ,”observe the animals and their behaviour and you will recognise my influence. Look closely , use your judgement and draw accurate conclusions. I am dismayed many times by the attitudes of fools who take the name of Christ and are convinced that they have power and authority to heal the sick and raise the dead . It is very often no more than presumption and assumption . They assume that the spirit of god is at their command and all they have to to is say the word and it is done. You hear them say “ I command this sickness to leave “ or something like that . Many years ago we lived in a run down house which was infested with cockroaches . A local preacher called and when he saw the problem he said to my father-in-law “ You should have faith and COMMAND those cockroaches to leave.” My father-in- law said ,” I'm not going to get down on my hands and knees and tell the cockroaches to bugger off.”

I agree with all those points you made.



I am told to use the academic , scientific approach. It does not work . It can't work and those who demand it don't use it. There seems to be some confusion between evolution and Darwen's theory of evolution. It is obvious that developments were by increments . That is observable. It is also observable that every creature is dependant on every other creature for it's existence; from the microbe to the mammoth,from the amoeba to the antelope. If one of the vital species ( such as the worm) was to be extinct overnight , then all life would end very shortly.

The fact that you are communicating on this forum via computers testifies to the absurdity of your claim that the "scientific approach" doesn't work. Of course, I guess you must mean that it "doesn't work" for evolution. But that seems nutty too because you use all the scientific facts you can find in your attempt to refute it. In other words, you are trying to use science to defeat science while claiming all the while that science doesn't work! :dizzy:

Also, you might want to start spelling "Darwin" with an "i".

And yes, there are many differences between Darwinian evolution and modern theories - which is what anyone should expect since the theory has been evolving for over 100 years!

I'm glad you admit that it is "obvious that developments were by increments." How do you interpret that obvious fact? Do you think each organism is a special creation by God? Or is evolution "partly correct?" Either way, you apparently have a "theory of evolution" to explain the fossil record.

As for the mutual dependance of organisms upon each other. It is not so complete as you suggest. The worm could die by life would continue. But that's irrelevant to my point which was that we have strong evidence for common descent of all organisms which contradicts the idea that each species was specially created by God.



It can be readily observed and proved under controlled conditions that all animals are imbued with just sufficient intelligence to fulfil the purpose for which they were created. Fools will retort “That's nature” . Of course it's nature . Nature is God.

Oh my! You believe "Nature is God?" That's panetheism dude! Most Christians would reject such a statement.



I choose to believe in the God of the bible.
The choice has proved to be a good one . The words have often been verified and the choice justified.

Yes, no one can argue with that. Everyone knows there is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters which are above.



I am often at variance with the academics.

You don't say! I find that hard to believe. :p



Just nowI am considering Septarian Nodules.. I have been well acquainted with them for many many years. Recently, I bought a few. Two were local and one from Taiwan. On close examination I decided that they were not nodules at all . I have a very strong feeling that they are organic in origin. Now the text books tell me that coal was formed by ancient forests turning into peat and the peat slowly turning into coal. Wrong, wrong wrong . I worked at the coal face for two years and never saw one fossil in a piece of coal. I don't say they don't exist . Just that in the hundreds of tons of coal that were on my shovel ,I never saw a fossil .They proliferated in the rock which formed the roof. There were thousands in the floor under the coal but none in the coal itself . Now why is that? . If the “experts” are right , then there should be masses of fossilised material in the coal . Now it is my turn to speculate and theorise. My assumptions are based on observation the coal mine roof we would always be on the lookout for signs in the roof. A circle , about two feet across , we called a “slip”. It was a line , about the thickness of a pencil line.It was ,in fact , all that remained of a tree like plant . The core was solid rock. The coating was coal, The greasy coal failed to grip the surrounding rock and so there was a real danger of it slipping out and crushing a man. The other danger was a “roll”. Rolls were long parallel lines about two feet apart. This was a tree lying on its side. These plants never extended into the coal. Why?. Because the coal , at that time was liquid . It was oil. It was a sea of oil. Now let us take a step back and look at the rock. In the mines where I worked , the rock was like slate . When you split it,it the imprint of ferns in it. That is all they are: imprints. The plants were covered in oil . The waters were muddy with fine ash . Modern researchers have all the opportunities that I could only dream about . They could go down to the bottom of a coal mine shaft . They could take samples of the rock all the way to the top. They could examine the fossils and see if there was any change. They could date the rocks from radiation techniques. They could find out how long it was between the deposit of one seam to another. They could calculate how long the period was and much more. They will never do it because if they do they will have egg on their face. The same thing applies to the grand canyon , In places it is a mile deep. ( Encyclopaedia Britannica) Anybody can take samples from bottom to top and draw conclusions . I can' be bothered writing all the details . That is Just a rough outline
Alec
OK - it looks like you learned some interesting stuff as a coal miner. That's cool. But I don't quite get your point. Are you saying that all geological scientists on the planet are part of a big conspiracy to hide that fact that the earth is young or that Noah's flood really happened, or some such thing? Are you pushing a conspiracy theory that says science is trying to hide the facts that prove the Bible?

By the way, what do you think of all the answers I gave in my previous post. You did not respond to them.

alec cotton
08-28-2011, 09:55 AM
O.K Richard . We will go on a nit picking crusade. Don't blame me for being boring , you started it. Quote. 'The fact that you are communicating on this computer testifies to the absurdity of your statement that the scientific approach doesn't work. That is your fancy footwork coming into play. It all depends on what you mean by science. I have said before that modern science is theory from speculation. True science is . Knowledge from inquiry. This computer came about because men over the years observed , judged ,concluded and applied . That is light years away form the speculative 'science' of Darwinian evolution. When you are on the ropes , you duck and dodge and wobble and weave instead of taking it on the chin like a man. I don't mind you shadow boxing but I do object to your limbo dancing. You admire the bigwigs, I despise them.I will give you an example.A group of these well heeled investigators dug a mammoth out of the permafrost. At vast expense they humped it back to the museum lab and then blew their trumpets about the great achievement. The most important questions went unnoticed. They had the ideal opportunity to take samples of soil from the sole of the foot to the shoulder. Then they could pose the question ; What were the prevailing conditions when this animal died What was the vegetation beneath its feet. . What was the vegetation at shoulder height. The permafrost was the same from the day of its demise to the present day. What was the nature of the deposit which buried it . Was there any pollen in it . Any seeds . If so , what sort?. I have never heard those questions posed much less answered . If they had been conducive to the Darwin theory , they would have emblazoned them in newspaper headlines. These are the kind of big knobs whom you revere. You say that I should spell charlie's
name with an I . I will defer to your request ----- reluctantly. . When they say that Darwin won ,I ask when did Darwin win . That is why I spell win with a wen. You say that the Darwin theory has been evolving for a hundred years . It has been revolving for a hundred years and revolting all that time . It can't evolve . It was crap from the start . Ever since then ,it's adherents have been tinkering and altering , shoring it up and shoving it . It is still a heap of rubble. Truth may emerge but it cannot evolve . It is either true or false. True or false?.

Quote. I am glad that you admit that developments were by increments. How do you interpret that obvious fact?
Obvious ,I thought. I have many times seen younger rocks sitting on top of older rocks . In every single case , there are animal remains in the older rocks which are never seen in the younger ones . There are fossils in the younger rocks which did not exist in the older ones. The cut-off point is so distinctive that the age of the rock can most often be determined by the fossils in it. The theory insists that the animals adapt themselves and then states that they became extinct because they could not adapt. No animal can adapt itself. Each one is adapted to the environment and to the purpose for which it is intended. . We will take the simple case of the graptolite . It was introduced in the Cambrian period. . It survived the Ordovician,the Silurian,Devonian and Carboniferous. At the end of the carboniferous it suddenly disappeared from every sea ,lake ,pond and puddle in the world. The purpose had been served and it was replaced by other organisms. I am only stating the obvious : That which screams out from the ground and demands attention. It is obvious to me that life is choreographed, that it is moving ever onward to a specific goal. The changes are punctuated by world wide catastrophic events. In the geological past they can be seen as a pattern. Each period lasting about fifty million years. It is about 50000000 yrs since the last one , so we must be due another at any time. There is no logical reason to assume that the sequence has ended.
Quote.Yes you provided evidence-------- evidence for evolution that is.

Once again you are hopping about . Dancing round the periphery .I think you could have taught st Vitus. You ask me to dot every I and cross every t and attend to every iota subscript,watching every yod and tending every tittle. In the mean time you can slide from one definition (of the same word ) to another and back again in the same breath. You deceptively use the word 'evolution', when you really mean the Darwin THEORY OF evolution. You say that a geologist can't have a belief about the origins of the earth ( Don't ask for precision again) They most certainly do and they trumpet it on a regular basis. You ask me if there is a conspiracy. My answer is YES! There is , but it operates at a subliminal level. When an eminent individual sees a gaping hole in the accepted theory , he dare not expose it for fear of ridicule . I have seen it in operation on several occasions.

Quote .You believe that nature is God . That is pantheism.

Once again you deceptively change the meaning of a word to indicate that which was obviously not intended. To talk about the birds and the bees as 'nature ' is infantile. Every sentient being on earth is aware of an omnipotent , intelligent force at work I am a monotheist to the very core . I am convinced that this spirit which some call 'nature' is the one who identified himself as Jehovah. I am also convinced that he had the bible written in order to enhance the quality of life for humanity. This is the God whose laws I seek to understand and whose rules I try to live by.
Alec