|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |