Science and God

On 5 Sep 2006 22:58:52 -0700, "darylgene@aol.com"
<darylgene.DeleteThis@aol.com> spake thusly:


>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> And how is it reasonable, when all we see is CLAIMS
>> of "enormous evidence" and NEVER actually see this
>> supposed evidence?
>>
>
>Collins provides some in his book mentioned earlier,

That's a claim, not proof. Have a nice life.


--

"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."

"Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest fools
in nature; for they see there is a world that could not
make itself, and yet they will not own there is a God
that made it." - Matthew Henry
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:04:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:


>If both evolution and Christianity are valid, how can they
>be contridictory?

They aren't and you have offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
that shows that macroevolution is reality.


>> This is the bias of the evolutionist. Has it ever occurred
>> to them that their seeing sudden disappearance?
>>
>> Maybe it's not the "Great Cambrian Explosion".
>>
>> Maybe it's the "Great Cambrian Death".
>>
>> Maybe they're seeing the last of a species, not the first.
>>
>> But from the evolutionists point of view, yes, that's all
>> they're able to see. And that should tell them that they
>> don't have the evidence, but of course, that isn't
>> acceptable, because the promotion of evolution comes
>> through naturalists and so, they constantly try to fill in
>> the gaps with imagination and they call it "science".
>
>I disagree, there _is_ empirical evidence of change, and
>change is what evolution is about.

There is zero evidence of macroevolution. You are wanting
to show evidence of microevolution, which is a fact of science
and then CLAIM macroevolution.

Now I have snipped the rest. I said my piece. YOU claim
that macroevolution is reality. Thus, I would state that you
need to prove it. Claiming the evidence exists, is just that.
A claim. Provide said evidence. And be ready to discuss it
in detail. Just pointing to web links means that you are
assuming that their claims are true and that's all they have,
is claims, which is why every single time I have gone through
this supposed "evidence" with an evolutionist, I found them
ill equipped to discuss the supposed evidence and found
that they were merely taking someone's word for it and
that word was nothing more than claims.

So the ball is in your court. Enough of you trying to tell me
about things that are directly observed and testable and
pretending that's evidence of macroevolution. You have
proved my point. When it comes time to show the evidence,
what we get from evolutionists, is examples of something
else. This is because they know there is no evidence. If
there were, it would be immediately presented, instead
of the dance that they proceed to give.


--

"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."

"The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz
did see. Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand;
it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's
heart shall melt:" - Isaiah 13:1,6-9 (prophecy regarding
Babylon, fulfilled in 539 B.C.)
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:04:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:


>> You are missing the point. With fire, you had direct observation
>> and repeatable testing. So you have made my point for me. In
>> science, for something to be considered science, you must have
>> either direct observation or repeatable testing that can be done.
>
>TO some extent it can be repeated. There are computer programs
>given the parameters can demonstrate evolution.

If the evidence was there, the evolutionists wouldn't be needed.
And that program is written to make assumptions that X and Y
happened and proceed in that manner. Yet X and Y have never
been observed to happen.

You choose evolution over God. That is a fact.
They are not compatible. That is a fact. But if
you wish to believe that there was no Adam and Eve
and therefore, no original sin, which means that what
Jesus supposedly came to save us from never happened,
then you go ahead and claim that a made over monkey
is your Lord and Savior. But in reality, evolution means
that He is neither.


--

"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."


The Last Days were in the first century:

Matthew 16:27-28

27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
2 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. we know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.

This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.

This is not Pentecost. There was no coming
with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they
were all but one, still alive.

Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e4rtf25nr4ijc8emntdk938clr9bprgog2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:04:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
> <danwood34 DeleteThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >> You are missing the point. With fire, you had direct observation
> >> and repeatable testing. So you have made my point for me. In
> >> science, for something to be considered science, you must have
> >> either direct observation or repeatable testing that can be done.
> >
> >TO some extent it can be repeated. There are computer programs
> >given the parameters can demonstrate evolution.
>
> If the evidence was there, the evolutionists wouldn't be needed.
> And that program is written to make assumptions that X and Y
> happened and proceed in that manner. Yet X and Y have never
> been observed to happen.
>
> You choose evolution over God. That is a fact.
> They are not compatible. That is a fact. But if
> you wish to believe that there was no Adam and Eve
> and therefore, no original sin, which means that what
> Jesus supposedly came to save us from never happened,
> then you go ahead and claim that a made over monkey
> is your Lord and Savior. But in reality, evolution means
> that He is neither.
>
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on somethings.

Dan Wood
>
> --
>
> "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."
>
>
> The Last Days were in the first century:
>
> Matthew 16:27-28
>
> 27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
> of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
> reward every man according to his works.
> 2 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
> here, which shall not taste of death, till they
> see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
>
> Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
> of the Apostles. we know this, because Jesus
> said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
> be alive when this happened.
>
> This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
> coming with the Father's angels and no judging
> every man according to His works and they were
> all still alive.
>
> This is not Pentecost. There was no coming
> with the Father's angels and no judging
> every man according to His works and they
> were all but one, still alive.
>
> Now see a verse that no one argues is about
> His Second Coming and see that this is what
> Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.
>
> "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
> is with me, to give every man according as
> his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:17:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:


>"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:e4rtf25nr4ijc8emntdk938clr9bprgog2@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:04:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>> <danwood34.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >> You are missing the point. With fire, you had direct observation
>> >> and repeatable testing. So you have made my point for me. In
>> >> science, for something to be considered science, you must have
>> >> either direct observation or repeatable testing that can be done.
>> >
>> >TO some extent it can be repeated. There are computer programs
>> >given the parameters can demonstrate evolution.
>>
>> If the evidence was there, the evolutionists wouldn't be needed.
>> And that program is written to make assumptions that X and Y
>> happened and proceed in that manner. Yet X and Y have never
>> been observed to happen.
>>
>> You choose evolution over God. That is a fact.
>> They are not compatible. That is a fact. But if
>> you wish to believe that there was no Adam and Eve
>> and therefore, no original sin, which means that what
>> Jesus supposedly came to save us from never happened,
>> then you go ahead and claim that a made over monkey
>> is your Lord and Savior. But in reality, evolution means
>> that He is neither.
>
>You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on somethings.

Right now, that's a given.


--

"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."

In the beginning, God created...

And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.TakeThisOut@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:js20g21f3038c9v41cpnbdn6caghkcu1s8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:17:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
> <danwood34.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
So evolution is both fact and theory. Christanity is based upon
personal experience and faith. It's entirely possible that both are
valid and each serves to explain different aspects of the universe
and the world we live in. Science and religion can and should
be mutually exclusive.

Dan Wood
>
> >"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.TakeThisOut@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:e4rtf25nr4ijc8emntdk938clr9bprgog2@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:04:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
> >> <danwood34.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You are missing the point. With fire, you had direct observation
> >> >> and repeatable testing. So you have made my point for me. In
> >> >> science, for something to be considered science, you must have
> >> >> either direct observation or repeatable testing that can be done.
> >> >
> >> >TO some extent it can be repeated. There are computer programs
> >> >given the parameters can demonstrate evolution.
> >>
> >> If the evidence was there, the evolutionists wouldn't be needed.
> >> And that program is written to make assumptions that X and Y
> >> happened and proceed in that manner. Yet X and Y have never
> >> been observed to happen.
> >>
> >> You choose evolution over God. That is a fact.
> >> They are not compatible. That is a fact. But if
> >> you wish to believe that there was no Adam and Eve
> >> and therefore, no original sin, which means that what
> >> Jesus supposedly came to save us from never happened,
> >> then you go ahead and claim that a made over monkey
> >> is your Lord and Savior. But in reality, evolution means
> >> that He is neither.
> >
> >You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on somethings.
>
> Right now, that's a given.
>
>
> --
>
> "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."
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> And He did it in six days and said He did it
> in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
> that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
> and in other places. The original Hebrew
> word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
> anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
> a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
> etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
> the one exception?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:11:22 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:


>"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.DeleteThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:js20g21f3038c9v41cpnbdn6caghkcu1s8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:17:45 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>> <danwood34.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.

No, it doesn't. Nor have you proved that.


>So evolution is both fact and theory.

Because you said so. Right.


--

"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."

"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_ RemoveThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lli0g216911g3u4kk5bn6got7qn8h9f424@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:11:22 -0400, "Dan Wood"
> <danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
...
>>The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
>
> No, it doesn't. Nor have you proved that.
>
>
>>So evolution is both fact and theory.
>
> Because you said so. Right.

....

And your proof that the evidence from the natural world
fails to support evolution consists of ... ?
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Dan Wood" <danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MwXLg.40013$y7.29404@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> ... The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
> So evolution is both fact and theory. Christanity is based upon
> personal experience and faith. It's entirely possible that both are
> valid and each serves to explain different aspects of the universe
> and the world we live in. Science and religion can and should
> be mutually exclusive.
> ...

I thoroughly agree with you, except for your last sentence.
The fact that I base my own religion on an understanding of
the world gained through science should show that mutual
exclusivity is not necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that God is not our parent but our child and,
like the children of our bodies, is born from our acts of love.

Anthony Buckland, http://www.anthonybuckland.com

(or, for an ad suggesting why you might want to go there,

http://www.anthonybuckland.com/QUESTADS )
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Anthony Buckland" <bucklandnospam RemoveThis @direct.ca> wrote in message
news:Id6dnYwY7rkGK53YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MwXLg.40013$y7.29404@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > ... The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
> > So evolution is both fact and theory. Christanity is based upon
> > personal experience and faith. It's entirely possible that both are
> > valid and each serves to explain different aspects of the universe
> > and the world we live in. Science and religion can and should
> > be mutually exclusive.
> > ...
>
> I thoroughly agree with you, except for your last sentence.
> The fact that I base my own religion on an understanding of
> the world gained through science should show that mutual
> exclusivity is not necessary.

>
What I meant by that statement is that one should not look to science
for support of religion, nor to religion in determining the validity of a
scientific hypothesis. Religion and science are mutually exclusive
in this sense.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe that God is not our parent but our child and,
> like the children of our bodies, is born from our acts of love.
>
> Anthony Buckland, http://www.anthonybuckland.com
>
> (or, for an ad suggesting why you might want to go there,
>
> http://www.anthonybuckland.com/QUESTADS )
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Anthony Buckland" <bucklandnospam DeleteThis @direct.ca> wrote in message
news:MIydndlvZ5kDKJ3YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lli0g216911g3u4kk5bn6got7qn8h9f424@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:11:22 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>> <danwood34 DeleteThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
> ...
>>>The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Nor have you proved that.
>>
>>
>>>So evolution is both fact and theory.
>>
>> Because you said so. Right.
>
> ...
>
> And your proof that the evidence from the natural world
> fails to support evolution consists of ... ?

Nothing but blatantly ignorant bellowing.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:13:08 -0700, "Anthony Buckland"
<bucklandnospam RemoveThis @direct.ca> spake thusly:


>"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_ RemoveThis @tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lli0g216911g3u4kk5bn6got7qn8h9f424@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:11:22 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>> <danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
> ...
>>>The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Nor have you proved that.
>>
>>
>>>So evolution is both fact and theory.
>>
>> Because you said so. Right.
>
>...
>
>And your proof that the evidence from the natural world
>fails to support evolution consists of ... ?

Notice folks, this is all they ever have.

"I said it is true and that means that I don't ever have to
support my claims. You have to prove a negative."

Have a nice life.


--

"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."

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that
genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 21:04:54 -0400, "Dan Wood"
<danwood34 DeleteThis @gmail.com> spake thusly:


>"Anthony Buckland" <bucklandnospam DeleteThis @direct.ca> wrote in message
>news:Id6dnYwY7rkGK53YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MwXLg.40013$y7.29404@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> > ... The evidence from the natural world definately supports evolution.
>> > So evolution is both fact and theory. Christanity is based upon
>> > personal experience and faith. It's entirely possible that both are
>> > valid and each serves to explain different aspects of the universe
>> > and the world we live in. Science and religion can and should
>> > be mutually exclusive.
>> > ...
>>
>> I thoroughly agree with you, except for your last sentence.
>> The fact that I base my own religion on an understanding of
>> the world gained through science should show that mutual
>> exclusivity is not necessary.
>
>>
>What I meant by that statement is that one should not look to science
>for support of religion, nor to religion in determining the validity of a
>scientific hypothesis. Religion and science are mutually exclusive
>in this sense.

Evolution is a religion.


--

"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."

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected
the Sermon on the Mount... The world has achieved
brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of
nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- General Omar Bradley
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God