Science and God

"bob young" <alaspectrum.TakeThisOut@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:44F7BA95.F85856CB@netvigator.com...
>>
>> If the 'numenous' doesn't speak to you, why bother about it at all, or
>> concern yourself with those for which the entire cosmos has meaning only
>> in
>> it's Creator?
>
> No problem at all provided religions do not support wars, but they are
> always
> the justification for wars. Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb and will
> use it
> against Christians starting The First World Relious Nuclear War - all in
> the
> name of imaginary gods.

You know, one hears it stated all over the place that wars are [all] in the
name of God or this or that religion. It's a form of shorthand. Which
shorthand, it is noted, the 'net promotes so well, to the detriment of any
sort of scholarly approach.
Wars are never just about religion, or even primarily about religion, and
never have been. War is a territorial conflict. And just an observation
from the news today, people are being killed at an alarming rate by members
of their own religion. Wars would seem to be part and parcel of the human
condition.
C. S. Lewis is the realist who draws us to this list. Read essays such as
_God in the Dock_ if not the whole of your Bible. The Christian knows that
humanity has fallen short of the mark. (See also CSL's 'Christian
Reflections, _Miracles_, 'The Weight of Glory' for expansion on the human
condition, preservation of the human race)
There is the leading that if there is any good to come from war, it is to
force the human race to face our condition, to force us to turn to God.
(The Bible, The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and the aforementioned
works)
The Christian knows that each person is to do the good that they can, but
that ultimately God is in control. And in God is our help. But I'm sure
you already knew that.
This pov is much interpreted by non theists as pie in the sky thinking. A
student of some history, I don't see that any form of social action,
pacifism, or any other human endeavor has prevented wars in the long run. I
find that war and conflict is part of the human conditon (as are acts of
incredible goodness, even goodness of waring party to its enemy). Why would
that be, what am I to do in the face of my conditon? Where does one turn?
My answer, you may have surmised, is to turn to God.

Blessings,
Ann





>
> Then when we have killed ourselves off in a couple of million years the
> chimps
> will have learned to talk and then along will come the first chimp god
> - looking remarkably chimplike.

No, no chimps. It will be a cockroach. (See _All Hallow's Eve_ by Charles
Williams, if not _Metamorphosis_ by Kafka)
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> I mean no offense, but you BELIEVE that evolution has been
> proved and equate it with "science". It hasn't and it isn't.

Of course not. There is no such thing as proof in science.

There is only ever the dominant theory - no matter if you are talking
gravity, nuclear fusion or evolution.

A theory is something that:

a) gives a working explanation for existing observations
and
b) makes some predictions of which observations will be made later.

The theory of evolution does this. It does this very well,
actually. It's predictions of upcoming observations have been very,
very good.

This is what some people call "proof" when talking about gravity or
nuclear fusion but "just a theory" when talking about evolution. Such
people ought to read up on the material rather than repeat myths they
heard from someone whose belief system they share.

> Science requires at least one of the following two things:
>
> 1) DIRECT observation.

No. We can not directly observe the speed of light. Nor can we
directly observe nuclear fusion. However, we can make observations and
make our theory from that. Just like we do with evolution.

> 2) REPEATABLE testing.

Not true. Repeated observation of predicted results, as under 1). The
ever growing mass of fossils is such observation.

Let me add this: I am a christian and has been so for a bit more than
20 years by now. When at first I started out as a believer in The
Lord, I believed the rather ragged version of evolution presented to
me in school to be correct.

Some years later I was bombarded by creationist material. Rather
well-written and quite convincing, when you got only that one side of
it. Which I did. So I became a creationist. This continued for a few
years until someone pointed out that I had to check both sides of the
coin. Quite frankly, the scientific evidence(1) for evolution is
enormous. The evidence for (especially Young Earth) creationism is
reactive, not scientific. I have yet to see a prediction of an
observation that will point towards creationism of that kind.

I am now an evolutionist.

AND I am a creationist.

I believe God created the universe and I believe one of his tools was
evolution. If it isn't so, he has instead set up an enormous amount
false evidence for evolution, for whatever reasons he might have. I
rather doubt that.



(1) Evidence. Not proof. That's no the same!

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "15000 atheists in London rioted today
The RockBear. ((^)) after a blank sheet of paper was found
I speak only 0}._.{0 on a cartoonist's desk"
for myself. O/ \O -anon.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On 01 Sep 2006 17:42:34 +0200, p4.DeleteThis@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
Juul) spake thusly:


>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>> I mean no offense, but you BELIEVE that evolution has been
>> proved and equate it with "science". It hasn't and it isn't.
>
>Of course not. There is no such thing as proof in science.

And yet, when discussing evolution, evolutionists pretend
that there is. Don't doubt it and you're an idiot if you do.
That is to claim proof.


>> Science requires at least one of the following two things:
>>
>> 1) DIRECT observation.
>
>No. We can not directly observe the speed of light. Nor can we
>directly observe nuclear fusion. However, we can make observations and
>make our theory from that. Just like we do with evolution.

At least one of the two I listed is required, as I said.


>> 2) REPEATABLE testing.
>
>Not true. Repeated observation of predicted results, as under 1).
>The ever growing mass of fossils is such observation.

You can make all of the claims you want to. I stated a fact.
Fossils are proof that something died. That's all.

And once again, we see THE CLAIM, not the proof.


>I am a christian

That is a claim, not proof. And it is one that I do not believe.
The fact is, if evolution is true, then Jesus is not Lord and
Savior. Evolution eliminates original sin, which is what Christ
came to save us from. If what you believe is true, then we
are all animals, acting just as God created us to and He would
be evil for requiring anything more from us.

A Christian is not someone who eliminates Christ as Savior.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

www.answersingenesis.org
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ofpgf21aje5ib10ltr1nf388c1m2ud9ejo@4ax.com...
> On 01 Sep 2006 17:42:34 +0200, p4 DeleteThis @enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
> Juul) spake thusly:
>
>
>>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>> I mean no offense, but you BELIEVE that evolution has been
>>> proved and equate it with "science". It hasn't and it isn't.
>>
>>Of course not. There is no such thing as proof in science.
>
> And yet, when discussing evolution, evolutionists pretend
> that there is. Don't doubt it and you're an idiot if you do.
> That is to claim proof.

Then you would have cites for such claims!

I thought not!


>
>
>>> Science requires at least one of the following two things:
>>>
>>> 1) DIRECT observation.
>>
>>No. We can not directly observe the speed of light. Nor can we
>>directly observe nuclear fusion. However, we can make observations and
>>make our theory from that. Just like we do with evolution.
>
> At least one of the two I listed is required, as I said.

What is it about the previous response that you cannot comprehend?
We CAN NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE THE SPEED OF LIGHT!

WE CAN, of course, make observations ofevidence and data that SHOW the speed
of light.
That is - INdiect observation!
Such as gunpowdeer residue on one's hand is indirecty evidenece of having
fired a gun.
WE did SEE the gun fired, but the EVIDENCE supports the conclusion. .



>
>
>>> 2) REPEATABLE testing.
>>
>>Not true. Repeated observation of predicted results, as under 1).
>>The ever growing mass of fossils is such observation.
>
> You can make all of the claims you want to. I stated a fact.
> Fossils are proof that something died. That's all.

True.
It is the vast amount of OTHER EVIDENCEe that shows WHEN the li9ving
organism died.
But then, you couldn't comprehend that either!



>
> And once again, we see THE CLAIM, not the proof.

No; that's YOUR fraud! All (insane and deranged) claims - and NO proof,
evidence or fact to support it.

>
>
>>I am a christian
>
> That is a claim, not proof.

True.

>And it is one that I do not believe.

Like anyone gives a damn what a psycho moron believes.

> The fact is, if evolution is true, then Jesus is not Lord and
> Savior.

Wrong again.
They have nothing to do with each other.
What evidenece do YOU have for ANYTHING (related to religious beliefs) for
Jesus???
NONE - is ALWAYS the only answer!


>Evolution eliminates original sin, which is what Christ
> came to save us from.

Pr4ove Christ!
Prove original sin!


>f what you believe is true, then we
> are all animals,

Yes; we are.

acting just as God created us to and He would
> be evil for requiring anything more from us.

What god?
Prove god!!!!


>
> A Christian is not someone who eliminates Christ as Savior.

A christian (/"TRUE" (TM))
is not one who is and continues to be such a fraudulent and ignorant liar!
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen.RemoveThis@MYOB.com> wrote in message
news:12fh6catj8h1o3b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.RemoveThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ofpgf21aje5ib10ltr1nf388c1m2ud9ejo@4ax.com...
> > On 01 Sep 2006 17:42:34 +0200, p4.RemoveThis@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
> > Juul) spake thusly:
> >
> >
> >>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_.RemoveThis@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I mean no offense, but you BELIEVE that evolution has been
> >>> proved and equate it with "science". It hasn't and it isn't.
> >>
> >>Of course not. There is no such thing as proof in science.
> >
> > And yet, when discussing evolution, evolutionists pretend
> > that there is. Don't doubt it and you're an idiot if you do.
> > That is to claim proof.
>
> Then you would have cites for such claims!
>
Evolution is both theory and fact. There is no doubt that organisms
alive today are different than organisms that lived in the past. So that
change occured is fact, what caused this change to occur is theory.
Mutation and natural selection is theory, but there is overwhelming
evidence that it is the most reasonable and logical account for
explaining change.
>
> I thought not!
>
>
> >
> >
> >>> Science requires at least one of the following two things:
> >>>
> >>> 1) DIRECT observation.
> >>
> >>No. We can not directly observe the speed of light. Nor can we
> >>directly observe nuclear fusion. However, we can make observations and
> >>make our theory from that. Just like we do with evolution.
> >
> > At least one of the two I listed is required, as I said.
>
> What is it about the previous response that you cannot comprehend?
> We CAN NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE THE SPEED OF LIGHT!
>
Yes, but there is other fields of science that observation is essential.
In astronomy planets were first observed. Hubble observed that
glaxies were moving away. Issac Newton derived his laws because
of his observtions.
>
> WE CAN, of course, make observations ofevidence and data that SHOW the
speed
> of light.
> That is - INdiect observation!
> Such as gunpowdeer residue on one's hand is indirecty evidenece of having
> fired a gun.
> WE did SEE the gun fired, but the EVIDENCE supports the conclusion. .
>
Right!
>
>
> >
> >
> >>> 2) REPEATABLE testing.
> >>
> >>Not true. Repeated observation of predicted results, as under 1).
> >>The ever growing mass of fossils is such observation.
> >
> > You can make all of the claims you want to. I stated a fact.
> > Fossils are proof that something died. That's all.
>
> True.
> It is the vast amount of OTHER EVIDENCEe that shows WHEN the li9ving
> organism died.
> But then, you couldn't comprehend that either!
>
It's one thing to be incapable of comprehension, but it's an entirely
different matter to comprehend an idea and disagree. I think the
latter is case with the Pastor.
>
>
> >
> > And once again, we see THE CLAIM, not the proof.
>
> No; that's YOUR fraud! All (insane and deranged) claims - and NO proof,
> evidence or fact to support it.
>


Dan Wood, DDS
>
> ><snip>
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"darylgene@aol.com" wrote:

> bob young wrote:
>
> >
> > Nothing strange about common sense
> >
> > What is strange is stuff like this:
> >
> > The universe revolves around the earth.
> > Stars are pinpricks in the heavens.
> > The world is flat (and on pillars)
> > Bats are a kind of bird.
> > Rabbits chew their cud.
> > There is enough water to flood the entire planet
> > Women were created from a man's rib
> > Rainbows are a promise from God
> >
> > [Acknowledgements to 'James, Seattle'
>
> what about:
>
> Mountains are built from the pressure of deposits on the sea floor
> The universe is uniform
> Science can ultimately provide us with all knowledge
> Thought is just an electro-chemical reaction
> There are four elements
> To fight disease the logical thing to do is to allow ichor to be
> expelled from the body by letting blood
>
> Some of these ideas are not very old, indeed some are current, they are
> not religious ideas, they came from science, and yet they are very
> wrong.

Yes I agree science is something that lives now and always has done with
'modification. And as science progresses there is another kind of
'modification' in this case I refer to religious dogma that finds itself
in an impossible situation so it has to be modified to conform to new
discoveries. When i was schoolboy sixty eight years ago we were taught
frequently about angels, nobody mentions them these days, we have matured
to the level not even the fundyest religionist these days would believe
they ever existed

>
>
> You seem very angry about something and I am at a loss to understand
> why.

More frustrated at the sight of my fellow men groveling to imaginary
gods. Nothing wrong with that. If there were only one god I would give
it a chance, but since we homo sapiens make claims for tens of thousands
of them it is no great leap of intelligent to assume they are all man made

> I do not believe in leprechauns, yet if someone did I would not be
> at all inclined to waste my time posting to their website. Does it make
> you feel superior to Lewis, Aquinus, Lincoln etc.,etc. to simply make
> the claim that centuries of human experience are illusion?

I live in Asia, every week we hear reports from Indonesia and today in
Thailand of people being murdered because they are either Muslims or
Christians. The next world war may well be called The First Word Nuclear
Religious War, a war that will possibly wipe out a third of humanity in
the name of what ? In the name of imaginary gods.

> Did someone
> use religion to harm you? What exactly do YOU believe?

I believe there are good and bad amon all of us us and I believe in the
application of the law to take care of the bad guys not primitive
religious dogma that threatens sinners with the wrath of a god that never
shows.

I believe in protecting children form the actions of religionists until
they reach an age whereby they can make a grown up judgement on religion
and then make up their mind. The other day on TV following the Benny Hinn
'performance' [with his weekly criminal portrayals of of miracles] an
advertisement for 'Junior Rosaries' , appeared - All major credit cards
accepted,.

Sickening hard sell, hundred percent human, no gods involved in any shape
or form.

> What is your
> fount of ethics and aesthetics?

What is yours? An out of date primitive myth? This myth was made up for
exactly the reasons you expound to provide a standard of living which you
religious types seem to think you have a monopoly on. Well in China there
are 1.4 billion people with little or no religion. The family structure
there is stronger than in most modern Christian societies today, they are
making progress and there is nothing wrong in the main with their
society. A similar situation exists in modern Russia - are all these
people without ethics? Must they need to join your particular 'group'
before you will accept that they do?

Let us just imagine that had you been orphaned at age two and then been
adopted by a Hindu family; your god would now have the body of a woman and
the head of an elephant.

> What great revelation do you have to
> offer these poor deluded souls?

Non I am not a preacher and i have no concvept of a 'soul'

I would be most interested to have your definition of 'soul'

> Science?

Well science saves lives today, soon cancer will have a cure. In the days
of the claimed Late J.C. they had him curing blind people, well one blind
person I think it was. Why did He not cure them all? Of course he didn't
as it is purely fictional fables for local consumption at the time. Well
no, that is wrong, the story was written about 1.4 generations later

> You would replace a whole
> philosophy with a nihilistic viewpoint born from a branch of
> epistomology? Science can provide no ethic, no aesthetic; it is simply
> one way (and self admitedly limited) of looking at nature. If our
> essence is simply the product of natural, physical forces; then it
> would seem nature is wasting her time arguing with herself about things
> that matter not a whit.

Are you saying here that every good person out there is a Christian and
that no atheistic family has ever brought up a child to become a god
decent person. Kindly elaborate

> It is only when you view people as more
> than a particular arrangement of quarks and leptons that your
> reflections have any substance.

People are priceless and dying in The Middle East where the underlying
glue that keeps the fighting groups together killing other groups is
'opposing beliefs'

> The alternative leaves you as an
> accident,

We are ALL accidents, or if you like 'quirks of the evolutionary
process'. Evolution gave the giraffe a long neck, the aardvark a long
nose and homo sapiens a freak brain [I know it is a freak brain because
they make up gods by the thousands]

> an illusory projection of electro-chemical forces, with no
> control, nor even input as to the flow of nature. You may think this
> more rational, (whatever the word would mean in that context), forgive
> me if I do not.

Religionists can be arrogant power seekers, as this is an inbuilt human
need. We lived for millions of years huddled together in groups for
safety following blindly a leader, much as wolves do today, we still do,
but now we use religions, gods and politicians to provide the feeling of
security, but as I said, it leads to nothing but fighting.

I was brought up Church of England, confirmed and I saw through the 'con'
aged around twentyfive and traveling Asia has only strengthened my views.

Religion if fine behind closed doors, if you want to join you open the
door and ask - but it should not be thrust down other people's throats
specially when they are below the age of fourteen.

I hope this answers your questions

Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong kong

You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible
fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous
folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as
yet, quite intelligent enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]

Religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly
dreadful situation in which we find ourselves. Here we are in this wholly
fantastic universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has
any real significance. No wonder then that many people feel the need for
some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they
become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory.
[With acknowledgements to Fred Hoyle]


>
>
> Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

I am not sure who is doing the cross posting here, but the tone of this
discussion is really alien to alt books cs-lewis. I wish whomever would
stop.

Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

bob young wrote:
Sorry for thecarless post. Meant to be a james re[py.. Don't know wow
to correct it!
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ RemoveThis @tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> >I am a christian
>
> That is a claim, not proof. And it is one that I do not believe.

Well, I assume we've got all eternity to talk this point over

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "All great epics come to an end. The Iliad. The
The RockBear. ((^)) Odyssey. War and Peace. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I speak only 0}._.{0 Just kidding. The Tolstoy book is a ringer.
for myself. O/ \O Doesn't belong on this list. Too literal.
Not enough monsters." - New York Newsday
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_.TakeThisOut@tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> >I am a christian
>
> That is a claim, not proof. And it is one that I do not believe.

Well, I assume we've got all eternity to talk this point over. I _do_
as Paul put it "confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord" and I _do_
believe in my heart, that God raised Him from the dead. So you are not
going to get rid of me, unless you choose to go to that other place...

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "All great epics come to an end. The Iliad. The
The RockBear. ((^)) Odyssey. War and Peace. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I speak only 0}._.{0 Just kidding. The Tolstoy book is a ringer.
for myself. O/ \O Doesn't belong on this list. Too literal.
Not enough monsters." - New York Newsday
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:35:22 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:


>> I mean no offense, but you BELIEVE that evolution has been
>> proved and equate it with "science".
>
>Not really, but I'm convinced that the preponderance of the
>evidence does tend to support evolution.

You say this now. I wonder what you'd say in another thread.


>Science does not
>prove theories, indeed each new discovery builds upon
>existing evidence serves to confirm and strengthen a theory,
>but not prove it.
>However, one solid empirical fact which contridicts the
>theory is sufficent to either falsify heory or require some
>modification of the theory.

Is this where you claim that nothing contradicts evolution,
then I say it does and you nicely and neatly switched the
burden of proof onto me?


>> Many evolutionists have admitted to this, yet they still insist
>> that it happened. This is their "world view" and they filter
>> all data through this world view. They do not examine
>> evidence to see what it might be saying. They ASSUME
>> that it fits into their evolutionary world view and proceed
>> from there. Even the dating methods are based on
>> assumptions and often don't line up with their beliefs,
>> so they throw out any dates that don't.
>
>What about radiometric dating? Does this not confirm the
>dating methods?

That IS a dating method and no. It is built on assumptions.
Now if you are as intelligent as you think you are (I'm not
saying that you're not), then why haven't you investigated it?


>> Science requires at least one of the following two things:
>>
>> 1) DIRECT observation.
>> 2) REPEATABLE testing.
>
>This is true, but not in every case. One can indirectly
>observe the actions of certain phenomenon, and not
>actually observe the phenomenon itself.

And one is then making assumptions.


>Radio waves
>is one example, the flow of electrons is another.

One makes educated guesses. Ever actually seen an electron?
And here you are relying on repeatable tests. Option #2.


>One time historical events are another.

Which have recorded data and/or repeatable testing that can
be done.


>The Big Bang which began our universe was not observed,
>but one can
>observe and measure the effects of the Big Bang.

You claim the Big Bang happened. There are other ideas.
Don't bother saying, "Well, then, explain red shift", because
that may not be a fact either. As I said, there are other
ideas. And this is the arrogance of the naturalist, who
will not want to hear anything that means it didn't happen
all by itself, from a dot that came from nothingness, even
though they can't tell you how the dot got there. There
are competing theories that do not contain a Big Bang.
How often do you hear of them? They don't suit those
who have the power to keep them from the mainstream.


>It's a losing battle trying to discredit evolution.

Is this where you throw a bunch of things out there that
you think have been proved and then try to compare
evolution to them, as if it has just as much proof, but
of course, you haven't provided any for it?

Let me guess... "It's just as proved as gravity", right?

If evolution is so much a fact, why is it the only thing
that is called "science" and yet, everyone spends their
time talking about OTHER things and the evidence
they have for those other things (even in the text books),
when trying to get people to believe in evolution?

Has that ever occurred to you, especially since that's
exactly what you did in this message??? (:


>> Macroevolution offers neither and all they can point to,
>> is microevolution (which is a fact of science) and they
>> BELIEVE in macroevolution. There are actually six types
>> of evolution, but only one is proved. Only one is directly
>> observable and repeatably testable. That is microevolution.
>
>But what prevents microevolution gradually over long periods
>of time from radical changes in morphology?

Thank you for proving my point. It's never, "Here is the proof".
It's always, "Prove it could not have happened".

This is only done when someone knows that they can't prove
their case.


>> Btw Dan, thank you for your kind tone. I am normally
>> attacked.
>
>It is my nature, as long as one treats me with respect I will
>return in kind.

Glad to hear it. And I hope you don't take my response
as an attack. It wasn't personal. I was just being direct.


>> I simply think that you are basing your comments on
>> the misconception that macroevolution has been proved.
>
>It's no huge jump from microevolution to macroevolution.

It's an incredibly huge jump! But why are you talking about
this "jump"? I'll tell you why. Because you know that
microevolution is easily demonstrated. So you wish to point
at microevolution and then claim that it makes macroevolution
true. Now if you really had the "preponderance of evidence"
that you mentioned, you wouldn't need to do this.

Dan, do you really think that pointing at microevolution and
claiming that because it is demonstrated, that somehow means
that we should all believe in macroevolution is "science"???

Let's see....

No direct observation, like we have for microevolution.
No repeatable tests, like we have for microevolution.

Yet you claim that macroevolution is science. Huh???

And please don't try to wave the evolutionists magic wand
of "time". That doesn't fly with me either. If it's been
happening all along, then we should see it now.

And no, I won't entertain questions about what it should
look like, etc.. I find that when evolutionists know that
they can't support their case, they keep trying to shift
the burden of proof. I don't allow that.


>> But viruses from viruses and roses from roses, etc.,
>> are microevolution and do not prove that we all came
>> from goo, millions, or billions of years ago.
>
>There is some disagreement as to whether a virus is alive.
>Are Viruses alive in that they cannot reproduce without
>hijacking the reproductive machinery of eucaryote cells?
>Not according to at least one definition of what it means
>to be living.

I would agree that they are not. But they are used as an example
of macroevolution here.

Dan, it seems to me that it is as I said. You BELIEVE
macroevolution. You have NOT provided one bit of
support for it.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:36:58 +0000 (UTC), spok DeleteThis @cs.cmu.edu (John
Ockerbloom) spake thusly:


>In article <ofpgf21aje5ib10ltr1nf388c1m2ud9ejo DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>I am a christian
>>
>>That is a claim, not proof. And it is one that I do not believe.
>>The fact is, if evolution is true, then Jesus is not Lord and
>>Savior. Evolution eliminates original sin, which is what Christ
>>came to save us from. If what you believe is true, then we
>>are all animals, acting just as God created us to and He would
>>be evil for requiring anything more from us.
>
>While the arguments about science Pastor Dave proposes are run-of-the-mill
>claims routinely dealt with in talk.origins, this paragraph is interesting
>for a couple of reasons:

Right, sure.

Translation: I am an evolutionist, so I will claim that what he
has said is routinely refuted, but I will be just like the rest
and just make that claim and not actually refute what he said.

Now you make sure to omit the fact that my statement above
was in response to his claim to be a Christian. And you make
sure to snip the rest of the discussion, being the lying
evolutionist that you are.


>First, it makes clear that the main reason Pastor Dave and others
>like him disbelieve in evolution is not for scientific reasons,
>but because they fear it threatens their faith.

You can call it what you will. The fact is, macroevolution is
a fairy take that you choose to believe. There is no science
behind it. If there were, the argument would have been
over long ago.

Do you see me denying microevolution? No? Why not?
Oh yea, that's right... it's demonstrable science. It is not
only testable, but it is also directly observed.

Now it's too bad that you can't do either with macroevolution.
For if you could, then as I said, the argument would have
been over long ago.

Goodbye now.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science",
he said. "And I really think that's what's become of
Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:08:16 GMT,
in article <mosif29p1pvqdqmh78g47dmtjt22d3a3lc.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>Now it's too bad that you can't do either with macroevolution.
>For if you could, then as I said, the argument would have
>been over long ago.
>
>Goodbye now.

Good that you limited your exchange with an evolutionist to one post.
Sad it didn't include a presentation of the gospel, which alone is the
power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16-17).

--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).

• Daily devotionals • Community forum
• Bible questions and answers • Live chatting
• Free at www.pulpitfire.org
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God