A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sad Christmas Story



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 25th 05, 06:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story


"Mij Adyaw" wrote in message
newsHlrf.17226$LB5.11552@fed1read04...
I believe in evolution. I just believe that God created and directed
evolution. I wonder how many folks in this newsgroup share my belief?

-mij




Our world is always problematic. The biblical God is a fantasy.
The biblical account of history and humanity is distorted. We do distorted
things and do the fantastic.
But reality and truth goes far beyond our eyes and minds. This much we know.

Evolution happened and continues to happen, on the earth and into an
impossible future. It all really does seem impossible
don't you think?

Alone in our thoughts waiting for Santa.


  #32  
Old December 25th 05, 08:17 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story


I believe in evolution. I just believe that God created and directed
evolution. I wonder how many folks in this newsgroup share my belief?


I used to believe in evolution, basically because in grade school and high
school and college that's all I was taught. Because that's what is
displayed in museums as though it is a proven fact. Theistic evolution
attempts to say that both the Bible and evolution are true, that God used
evolution to bring about life as we know it. I tried to believe that, too,
for a while, but the two systems won't mesh.

Nowhere in the Genesis account is there room for long ages of time. In
fact, on the other hand, each day of creation is clearly delineated as a day
with an "evening and a morning." I also point out that vegetation was
created on the third day, before the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth day.
If the days were long ages, the plants would have died without light on the
night of day three!

I also point out that evolution requires death, and random, violent death at
that. Yet Genesis explicitly says the results of each creation day were
good or very good. Random, violent, continuing death over billions of years
does not fit with this good, ordered creation of a loving God. In fact,
death only came into the world only after Adam brought sin into the world
(Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21). Thinking on these distinctions, and
many others, lead me to turn away from theistic evolution, and then
evolution.

Books like Henry M. Morris' Genesis Record, Walter Brown's In the Beginning
(found on the web at www.creationscience.com/), or Lee Strobel's Case for
Creation do an excellent job of showing that evolution and biblical
creation are two distinct models for the world and how it came about. In
fact, the only two.

Steve





  #33  
Old December 25th 05, 10:40 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story


wrote in message
oups.com...
Stephen M. Zumbo wrote:
I used to believe in evolution, basically because in grade school and

high
school and college that's all I was taught. Because that's what is
displayed in museums as though it is a proven fact.


It would appear you were taught poorly. To learn what it really is:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/


Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at more of it in future, but I looked
at their page on radiometric dating already, and I saw no answer to the
basic unproven assumption that the rate of decay has been constant or
started at a known amount and was never altered. Without knowing these
starting points or changes, dating of rocks or fossils in the rocks is
impossible. Basically, the present is NOT the key to the past. This is
also implied in the Genesis model, since God rested from and finished
creation after six days. The processes in action today are fundamentally
different.

Also, a worldwide flood as presented in Scripture would have been caused by
processes not ocurring today, and probably caused changes that are almost
unimaginable today, but that would leave evidence: worldwide sedimentary
layers with layers bent while still fluid, rapid mountain building, fossils
laid down quickly, some flash frozen with food stll in mouths and stomachs,
fossils crossing "evolutionary" layers, canyons much bigger than the rivers
we see in them today, and more. Think about the canyons formed at mount St.
Helens due to mud flows and water that are hundreds of feet high. They were
formed in hours or days, some through solid rock. Imagine what a worldwide
Flood that took over a year to recede could do.

Evolution is visible around us daily; it's real.


Where is evolution visible daily? I see no examples of animals gradually
changing in complexity, from one distinct type into another. In fact, what
is seen is genetic variability within types (breeds of dogs, cats, horses),
with types (algae, trees, birds, dogs, people, etc.) always remaining
distinct. Which is exactly what you would expect from the Genesis model.
Mutation, which classic evolution requires, in present experience has always
been negative and usually fatal i.e fruit flies have been mutated through
many generation, but have never bred anything but fruit flies. This would
tend to keep types from changing, not the reverse.

If evolution were actually happening, there should be many transitional
forms between species, both in the fossil record and "visible around us."
Evolutionists have no answer for this, except punctuated equilibrium,i.e.
suddenly a new species appeared. Why not accept that they were suddenly
created by God then? That actually makes more sense, given an omniscient
and omnipotent God, than blind chance and vast time scales.



..


  #34  
Old December 25th 05, 03:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story

On or about Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:39:37 -0500 did Davoud
dribble thusly:

At the end of the story Mr. MacRobert's biographical sketch says "Alan
MacRobert independently disproved the existence of Santa Claus around
age 7, by dividing the number of houses in North America by the number
of minutes in the night before Christmas. He found the process
liberating rather than disappointing."

Liberated from the magic of childhood at only age 7? I can't help but
imagine what might have happened if Mr. MacRobert had been a budding
biologist at age 7: "Alan MacRobert received a puppy for Christmas
around age 7, and he dissected it..."


I'm not sold on the "magic" of Santa Claus. I think the view that it
trains children to be credulous has a significant amount of merit.

Of course, I was only 3 when I caught my parents putting presents
under the tree. My parents' inability to justify Santa's presence in
more than one mall at a time clinched it for me (they tried to pass
the guys in red suits off as just his workers).

I can't say if it's causal or symptomatic, but I'm certainly quite
skeptical of nonsense as an adult.

There's plenty of "magic" in reality, in my opinion.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
  #35  
Old December 25th 05, 05:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story


I used to believe in evolution, basically because in grade school and high
school and college that's all I was taught. Because that's what is
displayed in museums as though it is a proven fact. Theistic evolution
attempts to say that both the Bible and evolution are true, that God used
evolution to bring about life as we know it. I tried to believe that, too,
for a while, but the two systems won't mesh.

Nowhere in the Genesis account is there room for long ages of time. In
fact, on the other hand, each day of creation is clearly delineated as a day
with an "evening and a morning." I also point out that vegetation was
created on the third day, before the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth day.
If the days were long ages, the plants would have died without light on the
night of day three!


Against my better judgment I'm going to jump in here. On what basis do
you assume that the story is in any way literal? How could you possibly,
since the story contradicts itself, and there are two different time
lines given in chapter one and chapter two? When were women created,
before or after plants and animals? The story cannot be reconciled to
itself without interpretation. Once you choose one version over the
other, the story cannot be literally correct in both cases. And if you
choose to say that one version is metaphoric, you must admit the
possibility that both versions are.


I also point out that evolution requires death, and random, violent death at
that. Yet Genesis explicitly says the results of each creation day were
good or very good. Random, violent, continuing death over billions of years
does not fit with this good, ordered creation of a loving God. In fact,
death only came into the world only after Adam brought sin into the world
(Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21). Thinking on these distinctions, and
many others, lead me to turn away from theistic evolution, and then
evolution.


There is no reason to suspect that Adam brought death into the world for
anyone other than Adam and his descendants. The animals and plants that
the Lord gave him to eat - they were going to continue living after he
consumed them? Or if you say that death itself is evil, then why the
Lord's insistence on sacrifices of animals? Why should he prefer them to
sacrifices of plants?

And if you honestly believe that the Lord who created the world is
capable of such duplicity as to mislead us by making things like
radiometric dating incorrect, you'd have made a better Manichean than a
Christian. The Lord is just, not capricious.


Books like Henry M. Morris' Genesis Record, Walter Brown's In the Beginning
(found on the web at www.creationscience.com/), or Lee Strobel's Case for
Creation do an excellent job of showing that evolution and biblical
creation are two distinct models for the world and how it came about. In
fact, the only two.



Horse apples and hubris.
  #36  
Old December 25th 05, 07:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story

Stephen M. Zumbo wrote:

If evolution were actually happening, there should be many transitional
forms between species, both in the fossil record and "visible around us."
Evolutionists have no answer for this, except punctuated equilibrium,i.e.
suddenly a new species appeared. Why not accept that they were suddenly
created by God then? That actually makes more sense, given an omniscient
and omnipotent God, than blind chance and vast time scales.


You're a brick wall. All the group members should realize that the
requests for data which you creationoid types routinely request and are
duly deluged with (pun intended) will in turn be duly ignored or
discounted regardless of their unassailable scientific qualities.
Why don't you stop posting this on a science news group. Stick to
astronomy and have a Merry Christmas.

Shawn
  #37  
Old December 25th 05, 08:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:40:12 -0600, "Stephen M. Zumbo"
wrote:

If evolution were actually happening, there should be many transitional
forms between species, both in the fossil record and "visible around us."


There are... everything you see is in a state of transition. And the
thousands of fossil specimens of animals that no longer exist, but which
are pretty obviously related to modern species, represent transitional
forms- even if they were stable for millions of years.


Evolutionists have no answer for this, except punctuated equilibrium,i.e.
suddenly a new species appeared.


Well, what's wrong with that answer? In fact, there are a number of
theories along those lines. The basic idea is that "species" are
metastable. If they are successful, they tend to remain unchanged. But
when something in their environment changes, the pressure of natural
selection becomes stronger. A successful modification will take hold
quickly. There may be no transitional form at all, or that form may
exist only over a very short time period.

Is this proven? Of course not, nor can it be. But it does fit in with
what we know about genetics, population dynamics, the fossil record, and
a large number of other observations. In short, it is a valid and
respectable theory of evolutionary mechanisms.


Why not accept that they were suddenly
created by God then?


Because that isn't supported by the physical evidence.


That actually makes more sense, given an omniscient
and omnipotent God, than blind chance and vast time scales.


That is a _huge_ given, "an omniscient and omnipotent God"! You seem to
think that such a given is no big deal. To me, it seems far less likely
than the absence of such a creature. In any case, if we accept your
given we might as well simply stop thinking completely- there can be no
rules in such a universe.

FYI, "blind chance" is in no way a component of evolutionary theory. If
you believe that, you don't understand it at all.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #38  
Old December 25th 05, 11:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story

Stephen M. Zumbo wrote:
[...]
Where is evolution visible daily?


One quick and simple example that's affecting the world: avian flu.

More details at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ [scroll down]

  #39  
Old December 26th 05, 01:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story


One quick and simple example that's affecting the world: avian flu.




Avian flu is not evolution of one species into another! It is exactly what
I said in my earlier post: variability within a type of living thing:
viruses.


  #40  
Old December 26th 05, 02:19 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sad Christmas Story

Stephen M. Zumbo wrote:
One quick and simple example that's affecting the world: avian flu.





Avian flu is not evolution of one species into another!


And this thread has nothing to do with astronomy. Inflict yourself on a
theological forum.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Funny story about shuttle [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 December 20th 04 04:49 AM
Funny story about seti [email protected] SETI 4 December 20th 04 04:46 AM
Funny story about amateur [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 December 20th 04 04:37 AM
Funny story about policy [email protected] Policy 0 December 20th 04 04:31 AM
Funny story about history [email protected] History 2 December 19th 04 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.