| Scientist shoots down EVILution |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: BJ Sikes ® 10/04/2002, 12:34:31 Author Profile Mail author |
Just a little something our dearest Vera Carp brought to my attention: Scientist shoots down EVILution www.pastornet.net.au/cbc/...selves.htm
by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed [Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.] There is a great cry today from EVILutionists (especially those of the Skeptics groups) that creation science is not real science, and that it should be banned from schools. Creation scientists are actively persecuted for their beliefs by these people. Wherever possible, legal challenges are made to muzzle the voice of creation scientists. Using their position of esteem in the community, EVILutionary scientists assail creation scientists with a number of charges, giving the impression that creationism is dangerous. Creation science has been described by Graeme O’Neill, a prominent ATHEIST and critic of creationism, as "an insidious force whose growth threatens the intellectual roots of science". He stated that "the cage that creationism builds around young minds limits curiosity and inquiry to narrow avenues, and constrains the free and creative thought that has characterised Western science since the Renaissance". [Graeme O’Neill in "Creationism: Scientists Respond", Australian Skeptics (WA), 1991. Quoted in CEN Tech. J., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998 p:15] Ian Plimer (Professor of Geology at Melbourne University), an opponent in Australia’s ‘Ark Trial’, describes creation science as "bad religion", "bad science", and a "load of codswallop". [ "Misleading and deceptive but legally off the hook", Sydney Morning Herald, 3/6/97 p:2] Does this mean that creation science is a fake? — that creation scientists are just a mob of ‘nutters’? What is the real situation?
If EVILutionists do not operate from preconceived ideas, then they have a valid point. The Evidence:- "We take the side of science in spite of the latent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, 9 January, 1997 p:31] So, EVILutionists are guilty of operating using preconceived ideas. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Scientists Are Biased Creation scientists are accused of being biased because they always interpret experimental results so that it shows that God created the universe and life on Earth. Real scientists we are told, are not biased — they are open, free to find out the truth, independent of their own beliefs. If EVILutionists do not operate with bias, then they have a valid point. The Evidence:- "Writers on scientific method usually tell us that scientific discoveries are made ‘inferentially’, that is to say, from putting together many facts. But this is far from being correct. The facts by themselves are never sufficient to lead unequivocally to the really profound discoveries. Facts are always analyzed in terms of the prejudices of the investigator." [Sir Fred Hoyle, "Highlights in Astronomy", W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco (USA), 1975 (quoted in CEN, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1998 p:41)] "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. The strong tendency is to replace a need for more facts by conformity ..." [H.C. Arp, et al, "The Extragalactic Universe: an alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:812] So, EVILutionists are guilty of being biased. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Scientists Are Dogmatic Creation scientists are accused of being dogmatic because they won’t accept that EVILution is a possibility. Real scientists we are told, are not dogmatic — they are open, free to accept the truth, even if it contradicts their own beliefs. If EVILutionists are not dogmatic, then they have a valid point. The Evidence:- "The greater problem is that modernist science protects its grand theory of EVILution by starting with the basic assumption that God is out of the picture and by sticking to that assumption through every discouragement." [Phillip Johnson, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", Intervarsity press: Downers Grove (USA), 1997 p:88-89] "The only thing that he [William Paley] got wrong – admittedly quite a big thing! – was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than anybody had before. The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin". What is the truth? — "Natural selection ... which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life ..." [R. Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" (2nd ed), Penguin: London, 1988 p:4 & 5] (see W. Paley, "Natural Theology on Evidence and Attributes of Deity", 181 So, EVILutionists are guilty of being dogmatic. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Science Is Based On Myths And Legends Creation science is accused of being based on myths and legends (unproven ideas) because its foundation is in Genesis. Real science we are told, is not based on myths — it is firmly founded on absolute fact. If EVILution is not based on any mythical ideas, then EVILutionists have a valid point. The Evidence:- "Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory — that Darwin’s EVILutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress ... Durant concludes that the secular myths of EVILution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science"." [Dr John Durant (University College, Swansea, Wales) quoted in New Scientist, 11/9/80, p:765] "EVILution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." [Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg: Director of the Strasbourg Zoological museum: and later, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research) quoted in The Advocate, 8/5/84 p:17] So, EVILutionists are guilty of working on a mythical basis. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Science Is Just Religion Creation science is accused of being religion because it is connected to the study of God. Real science we are told, is not concerned with metaphysical things — it is solidly based on reality and absolute fact. If EVILutionists do not act in a religious fashion, then they have a valid point.
"EVILution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not." [Professor Maciej Giertych (M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc.) head of the Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, at the Institute of Dendrology, Kornik, Poland – in CEN, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1995 p:48] Ideologies are a belief system, just like religion. EVILutionists’ ideologies are based on EVILutionism and scientism. So, EVILutionists are guilty of acting religiously. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Science Is Pseudo-Science Creation science is accused of being pseudo-science because it is connected to the study of God, which is regarded as speculation. Real science we are told, is not concerned with speculative things — it is concerned only with discovering the facts of reality. If EVILutionists do not act in pseudo-scientific ways, then they have a valid point. The Evidence:- "… presents an insider’s critique of the scientific world-view based upon the sharp but oft-overlooked distinction between scientific truth and scientific faith ... demonstrates that major tenets promulgated in the name of Science are not in fact scientific truths but rather scientific speculations — for which there is no evidence at all." [In W. Smith, "Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientific Belief", Tan Books & Pub: Rockford (USA), 1984 p:168] "Much of contemporary cosmology deals with things like inflation and the big bang that have not been directly observed, and probably never will be. Andrej Pacholczyk of the University of Arizona in Tuscon views cosmology as "noncorrespondence science" — based on almost pure speculation." [Margaret Wertheim, "God of the Quantum Vacuum", in New Scientist, Vol. 156, No. 2102, 1997 p:28-31] "Many ordinary people, reading the works of a single popularizer, believe that the riddle of human origins has been solved. In no case is this true, and all the ideas in print today — including our own — are more or less naked speculation" [John Gribbin & Jeremy Chaerfas, "The Monkey Puzzle", Bodley Head: London, 1982 p:16 So, EVILutionists are guilty of acting pseudo-scientifically. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Science Will Stifle Creative Scientific Research On the contrary, the era that started (and fostered) the scientific age contained some of the world’s most famous scientists, many whom were bible-believing creationists. For example: Newton, Faraday, and Pasteur. (See my Unmasking EVILution lecture #29 "100 Famous Bible-Believing Scientists") The Evidence:- Dr Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a professor of anthropology, a science history writer and EVILutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders." It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ...It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." [Loren Eiseley, "Darwin’s Centenary: EVILution and the Men who Discovered it", Doubleday: New York, 1961 p:62] So, because of historical fact, EVILutionists cannot use this accusation against creation scientists. ACCUSATION: Creation Science Will Take Us Back To The Dark Ages (See my Unmasking EVILution lecture #37 "Will Creation Scientists take us Back to the Dark Ages?") SO IS IT EVILUTION THAT IS REALLY THE PROBLEM? The professional scientists have this to say:- Dr Andre Eggen (French geneticist) "Most of the time, EVILution will inhibit the study of real science. People begin with something they want to reinforce continually, namely EVILution, and so all observations on the cell, for example, will be squashed into serving this end." [CEN, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1998 p:18] Dr Brian Stone (Australian Professor of Mechanical Engineering) "If you define science as repeatable, reliable, observational fact, it’s obvious that EVILution doesn’t really qualify as science. People make these huge jumps; they see these tiny changes happening today, and so they conclude that all life forms have arisen from chemicals by a continuous process over millions of years. That’s not science, that’s belief." [CEN, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1998 p:52] Dr Eric Norman B.S., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. (Former assistant professor in research and experimental medicine, University of Cincinnati, Ohio) "EVILution is just unscientific. It violates the laws of chemistry including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the laws of probability, and information theory." [CEN, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1995 p:29] David Lane M.Sc., (Entomologist) "Biological design is described by EVILutionists as having resulted from Natural Selection operating through random, chance events. David Lane (M.Sc.), an entomologist describes this in an opening address to the staff and students at the University of Melbourne in October 1992, as "anti-science and a philosophical absurdity". [David Lane, "Caged Minds? Creation, Modern Science and Christianity", cited in CEN Tech. J., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998 p:17]
EVILutionists continue their attack on creation scientists, despite the hypocrisy of their own position. The bases for these attacks are two-fold. The aim is to:- Save face – "If scientists ever had to retreat on this issue, the cultural consequences could be significant. Persons who now have prestigious status as cultural authorities would be discredited, and the political and moral positions they have advocated might be discredited with them. This is the fear of Michael Ruse, author of Darwinism Defended." [Phillip Johnson (law professor, Berkley University), in J. Buell & V. Hearn (eds.) "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson (Texas), 1994 p:11] Get rid of God – "Let me summarize my views on what modern EVILutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either." [William B. Provine (Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University), Origins Research, Vol. 16, No. 1/2, 1994 p:9] Useful Resources Lamont (1995) "21 Great Scientists who believed the Bible", Creation Science Foundation Ltd: Brisbane H. Morris (198 "Men of Science, Men of God", Master Books: Colorado Springs (USA) H. Morris (1984) "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science", Baker House Books: Grand Rapids (USA) H. Morris & G.E. Parker (1982) "What is Creation Science?", Master Books: Green Forest (USA) D.T. Gish (1993) "Creation Scientists Answer their Critics", Institute for Creation research: El Cajon (USA) F. De Angelis (1995) "The Origin of Life by EVILution: An Obstacle to the Development of Science", (Translated by L. Pennington), Fernando De Angelis: Camucia (Italy) L.D. Smart "100 Famous Bible-Believing Scientists", Unmasking EVILution lecture #29, 1999 L.D. Smart "Will Creation Scientists Take us Back to the Dark Ages?", Unmasking EVILution lecture #37, 1999
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Please don't feed the troll! Re: Scientist shoots down EVILution -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/04/2002, 14:41:29
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Your point is? Re: Scientist shoots down EVILution -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/04/2002, 23:40:11
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm bitting the troll but I just love this forward Re: Scientist shoots down EVILution -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/05/2002, 00:32:52
Author Profile Mail author
Anyway, there are so many things wrong with this forward on EVILution I have no idea where to begin, but I'll try.
1) I find it really interesting that the major sources used within this text are either Creation Research works or are cited from non-scientific, non-peer reviewed journals and magazines. These magazines function for one purpose, to sell magazines, not to spread scientific fact. Of course they over-dramatize their arguments and conclusions because that kind of crap sells magazines.
2) So, EVILutionists are guilty of being biased. Therefore, they cannot use this accusation against creation scientists All scientists are biased, the difference is that the ideas the evolutionists are biased towards also happen to falsifiable so there is the possibility they can be disproved. Someone with a bias towards God can never be disproved, hence it is not science.
3)If EVILutionists are not dogmatic, then they have a valid point. Evolutionists must assume non-involvement from God otherwise there is no hope of empirical study.
4)I just love the mis-quote "EVILution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." In reality, this statement is hardly true. Evolution applies and is useful in many different sciences, including geology, societal evolution, astrophysics, agent based computer simulation, biology, etc.
5)Much of contemporary cosmology deals with things like inflation and the big bang that have not been directly observed, and probably never will be. This is a poor criticism on which to base an argument, because evidence of the big bang does exist (in the Red/Blue shift of stars, etc.) but of course, it will never be video taped or photographed. Fortunately, that sort of evidence is not normally necessary to establish something as true. For example, one will never see a photograph from space that shows both sides of the earth at the same time. Such a photograph (unless it were a hologram) would be impossible to make. Despite this, we still have a great deal of evidence that the Earth is indeed a sphere.
6) Ultimately the troll concludes with the conclusion that evolution stifles Creationism because they want to save face and get rid of God. This is a serious straw-man argument. I don't think evolutionists seek to kill God at all, but rather don't give Him/Her/It any thought as the notion is unscientific, unempirical, and pointless to study. Most evolutionists are in fact theistic evolutionists, which means they feel God was the one responsible for creating the laws and process to begin with. Very few evolutionists would have a problem with this statement. Finally, I hardly think evolutionists have any "saving face" to do. Rather, this major burden is on the Creationists who fudge results, practice bad science (not with regard to subject matter, but in terms of methodology and statistical procedures), and have had a history of major contributors with degrees from diploma mills.
Ultimately, the evidence used to back up these claims is the downfall of the arguments presented in the troll. They might as well quote from Cosmo, Seventeen, or People magazine to establish their arguments, as these magazines have the equivalent creditability that the cited resources do.
For more reliable information, see www.talkorigins.org
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
appreciated your response Re: I'm bitting the troll but I just love this forward -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
10/05/2002, 01:58:11
Author Profile Mail author
"All scientists are biased, the difference is that the ideas the evolutionists are biased towards also happen to falsifiable so there is the possibility they can be disproved. Someone with a bias towards God can never be disproved, hence it is not science"
"I don't think evolutionists seek to kill God at all, but rather don't give Him/Her/It any thought as the notion is unscientific, unempirical, and pointless to study."
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: appreciated your response Re: appreciated your response -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Lance ®
10/05/2002, 02:45:36
Author Profile Mail author
The creationist deals with things that cannot be directly observed, such as a god making the earth and giving rise to life through divine intervention. So it appears that both the creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat.
So what can we do? Well, we can investigate using the proven method of science and see where the evidence leads. And where does the scientific evidence point? It points, overwhelmingly, to evolution. There is tremendous actual scientific evidence in support of evolution. There is nothing to support creationism. Given that so much evidence indicates that evolution really happens, is it really rational to reject the idea in favor of one that not only cannot be observed directly to have happened, but also has no scientific evidence in its support?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Photo of God creating the earth Re: Re: appreciated your response -- Lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/05/2002, 06:28:50
Author Profile Mail author
or perhaps we can have fun taking photos of our souls!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: appreciated your response Re: appreciated your response -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/05/2002, 12:19:29
Author Profile Mail author
You're only now getting around to the Popperian philosophy of science? And logical positivism?
Sheesh!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
cheap shots again martin? Re: Re: appreciated your response -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: marg ®
10/05/2002, 23:21:51
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No, marg. Re: cheap shots again martin? -- marg Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/07/2002, 16:28:25
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
The Truth (as opposed to EVILutionist troll) Re: I'm bitting the troll but I just love this forward -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/05/2002, 03:26:51
Author Profile Mail author
Adam and Eve live in the garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve disobey God; they are punished and have to leave Eden.
The perfect creation is cursed - God allows death to enter the world.
Adam and Eve have children; Cain kills his brother Abel.
Everyone becomes bad (except Noah's family).
God sends a worldwide flood, saving only Noah's family and selected representative animals.
God scatters the growing population at Babel by confusing their language.
People and animals spread across the earth.
Physical separation leads to the formation of different races and cultures.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, he cursed the perfect world he had made (Gen 3:17). From then until now the world has been in a state of decay, both physically and morally. This physical decay is known in science as the "Second Law of Thermodynamics", which says that the energy in the universe is becoming less useful for work - that the universe will ultimately die a "heat death" (the entire universe will be the same temperature). The first death in the world occurred when God himself killed an animal to make garments for Adam and Eve after they sinned (Gen 3:21). Adam and Eve lived for a long time had many children. The children married each other, but this was ok at the time, as they were no genetic imperfections yet. But in the very first family, Cain kills his brother Abel, and all the people in the world become bad, except for a man named Noah, and his family.God sends a worldwide flood as punishment. God specially picked the animals brought onto the ark (Gen 7:9) to ensure that the genetic makeup of these animals would allow all the variation we see today to be derived. Two or seven animals of each "kind" were saved. For example, a dog was probably a kind from which all dogs and wolves today are descended. Most of the animals would be young, to not take up as much space on the ark. By only needing to take representative specimens of a limited number of "kinds", and not of each species (of which there are very many), it has been shown that the ark would have had more than enough space. Baby dinosours were among the animals on the ark.
The worldwide flood created the "geologic column" that scientists point to as "proof" of evolution (most evolutionary scientists don't believe that a worldwide flood ever happened - evolution assumes that the past has been more or less "uniform" in terms of the operation of physical processes). The column tends to show smaller/simpler living creatures at the bottom (the oldest "age"), and larger/more complex creatures at the top. The explanation for the appearance of the column (only a small part of which typically exists in any one place) can be explained in two ways. First, the water action had a sorting effect on the creatures, causing the smaller ones to fall to the bottom and the larger ones stay on the top (like what you see when opening a bag of potatoe chips!). Second, all of the creatures of the same kind would tend to die at the same time as their suitability to the rapidly changing environment was exceeded. For example, a marine community might be buried first, followed by a swamp community, followed by a lowland community, etc. Also, the more intelligent and mobile creatures, like apes and men, would move to the highest ground and would be the last to die and be buried. The explosion of Mt. St. Helens has produced physical features (like a mini "grand canyon") in only hours that evolutionary scientists would have said took millions of years to produce. This illustrates the power that catastrophic natural events can have on shaping the features found on the earth. Many of the geological features of the earth today were formed as a result of the world-wide flood of Noah's time.
After the flood the population began to grow again. It is interesting that the place in which the ark landed (on Mt. Ararat in Turkey) is an ideal location from which to re-populate the earth's land masses because of its central location. When the people at Babel decide to build a "tower that reaches to the heavens" (Gen 11:4), God had seen enough and confuses their language so they will not be able to understand each other. This forces the people to start to scatter across the earth. As they spread into new areas a couple of things happen: one, inter-marriage within the smaller groups leads to changes in physical appearance and the formation of the different races; two, knowledge, skills, and base technology are lost, making many of those groups that spread the furthest appear more primitive, at least for a time. Even the knowledge about the one true God would fade and disappear over the generations. Some would live in caves as ready-made housing. Some would acquire new knowledge and develop new skills not possessed by others, leading to a differentiation of cultures. The study of ancient cultures finds that many of them were quite remarkably advanced. This is not surprising in the creation model, but is quite unexpected in an evolutionary model.
Regards,
Bette Jean Sikes
Jesus is Just Alright wiht Me!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ever study Geology, linguistics or anthropology? Re: The Truth (as opposed to EVILutionist troll) -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/05/2002, 05:12:34
Author Profile Mail author
Interesting commentary, but have you ever taken a course in geology? I think its very interesting, and the ideas contained in modern geology take some time and some thought to understand their process of inquiry and investigation. You may also consider taking an introductory course in linguistics or anthropology.
Catastrophic and sudden events in geology are recognized, I watched an interesting documentary on PBS about Niagara Falls. Some sections of the river were eroded away very, very quickly, within a matter of a few hours; other sections took thousands of years to chisel away.
An interesting a controversial idea centers on the geology of Venus. This review advances the idea that "…Venus underwent near-complete global resurfacing approximately 300--500 m.y. (million years) ago…"
http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/bindsc01/bindsc01.htmlClearly a sudden and 'catastrophic' event on the planet Venus. This has had a big impact on geology. However, I don't think the earth has ever been completely resurfaced. It’s a questionable idea to use this as evidence of a God, or to extend that a global flood happened on earth.
You say "Many of the geological features of the earth today were formed as a result of the world-wide flood of Noah's time. " would you care to say a little more about this?
I would like to express some caution about your use of the word 'primitive" in reference to various people around the world. Its generally not good public relations between Christians and potential converts. European missionaries and conquerors largely spread Christianity, so it makes sense to me that a creationist view of anthropology and linguistics would have such a Eurocentric view.
Thank you,
James
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ever study the Bible? Re: Ever study Geology, linguistics or anthropology? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/08/2002, 12:10:12
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yes Re: Ever study the Bible? -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/10/2002, 03:29:15
Author Profile Mail author
Why yes, I have studied the Bible. Been there, done that. Why do fundementalists think that nobody else has ever been exposed to 'The book'?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I've studied both... Re: Ever study the Bible? -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
10/11/2002, 20:17:19
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The Right Rev. Billy Saul Hargus would be Re: I've studied both... -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/14/2002, 04:04:54
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Oct 14, 2002, 04:06:59
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Put your **HANDS** on the ra-dee-o! Re: The Right Rev. Billy Saul Hargus would be -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/14/2002, 04:24:09
Author Profile Mail author
"Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
I could go a hundred miles an hour
Long as I got the Almighty Power
Glued up there with my pair of fuzzy dice"
Put your **HANDS** on the ra-dee-o!Victoria
;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: The Truth (as opposed to EVILutionist troll) Re: The Truth (as opposed to EVILutionist troll) -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: fer-de-lance ®
10/05/2002, 05:37:32
Author Profile Mail author
thanks,
Fer-de-lance
God is BIG
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Real Truth Re: The Truth (as opposed to EVILutionist troll) -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/07/2002, 03:00:52
Author Profile Mail author
Anyway, here we go again:
1) "The first death in the world occurred when God himself killed an animal to make garments for Adam and Eve after they sinned" This paints a rosy, but untrue perspective of the Earth pre-fall. First of all, what exactly is "death"? What creationists fail to point out is that the death of one thing is the cause for life of another organism. Take the bacteria in Adam's and Eve's digestive tract, for example. If these bacteria never died, they themselves would become incredibly sick or possibly even infected as the bacteria would reproduce out of control. Another example would be the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil. Several possibilities come out of this if they aren't allowed to "die". First, they would either overrun the soil in which they are fixing nitrogen into a form usable by plants and animals, or fail to produce any usable nitrogen at all, prohibiting plant and animal growth. Here's a quote from plant guide regarding nitrogen fixation: "Biological nitrogen fixation is the process that changes inert N2 to biologically useful NH3. This process is mediated in nature only by bacteria. Other plants benefit from nitrogen fixing bacteria when the bacteria die and release nitrogen to the environment." This answer is already long enough but if you want to hack away at the possibility of multi-cellular organisms not dying before the fall, let me know (but I'll give you a hint... God said that all the plants (except one) were good to eat in the garden, so obviously harvesting would kill the plant and cause it to "die", so why the bias towards animals? What's so special about animal life?).
2) Regarding the Creationism and its "kinds", "these kinds also fail to appear in any tangible form. Different species are not always perfectly reproductively isolated. Some species [...] are so similar that even experts would have trouble telling them apart. At higher levels of classification, it is a simple matter to find groups that are unambiguously isolated, but these groups are all nested within each other (a consequence of common descent), so it is entirely arbitrary which groups to label as different kinds. Would you identify "kind" with species, species group, subgenus, genus, subtribe, tribe, division, family, order, phylum, or some level of classification between these levels? If you decide that a certain amount of variation and no more is acceptable within a kind, it is always possible to find a natural grouping which includes only slightly more variation, and thus which could be reached by microevolution. Probably the best evidence for the lack of natural kinds is the inability of creationists themselves to decide what they mean."
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html3) The "uniform" geologic column is another frequent example given by Creationists. Unfortunately, the idea is an urban legend started by "Dr." Morris of the Creation Research Institute. There is in fact, no uniform column. Further more, even if there were a flood, the settling of the animals would be based on density, not on size or complexity of the animals. Not to mention the densest animals would hit bottom first, not the least dense and smallest. This essay has the order all wrong.
4) The ark has never been found so no conclusion can be drawn from the location where it landed. Unfortunately, this last paragraph is so poorly written that the actual intent of the author is quite vague. Basically, all I can make out of it is that the Tower of Babylon is cause for "remarkably advanced" prehistoric cultures, and that this some how proves Creationism and not Evolution. Despite being a sociologist, I am confused as to how the author of this passage attempts to prove Creation through cultural development. If anything, actual social and cultural change proves nothing with regard to biological evolution since the two are not related. I think the same thing could be held true with regard to language development.
In summary... though its fun to debunk these Pro-Creationism essays, I'd be interested in a dialogue directly with you, BJ Sikes. I'd like to know what you, yourself, think about Creationism or Evolution.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Mr. Cow, Sikes is a TROLL!! Re: Re: The Real Truth -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/07/2002, 18:27:41
Author Profile Mail author
If you feed trolls, you are merely inviting them to continue trolling and rewarding them for it!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Mr. Cow, Sikes is a TROLL!! Re: Mr. Cow, Sikes is a TROLL!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/07/2002, 20:27:18
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What's a TROLL? Re: Mr. Cow, Sikes is a TROLL!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jerome ®
10/09/2002, 22:26:42
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What's a TROLL? Re: What's a TROLL? -- Jerome Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Darr ®
10/10/2002, 04:53:29
Author Profile Mail author
No. Sorry but 666 doesn't work in English. And it most likely was wrong in most Greek versions, and all subsequent translations. One of the earliest fragments, Oxyrhynchus Papyri shows the Number of the Beast as 616. Gematria barely worked in Hebrew, and got totally slaughtered by the time it was used in New Testament Greek ala Revelation. This is quite curious considering new evidence (Uri Marcus and also Nag Hammadi translations) demonstrates that the Qabalah had its roots in 8th century BCE Greek Numerology. For a brief synopsis try Gematria - Introduction to Hebrew Numerology or follow the link on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri site for a brief explanation of the Greek Numerology.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: What's a TROLL? Re: What's a TROLL? -- Jerome Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/10/2002, 08:24:36
Author Profile Mail author
Another type of troll (which we saw no too long ago) is one who tries to elicit responses that they can later use to attack the entire forum with, usually in another forum or web site. The troll I am referring to had hoped to document that we are all ignorant, extremist "anti-Mormons" until I caught him out.
Yet a third type of troll just likes to stir things up for the hell of it.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Troll Taxonomy Re: Re: What's a TROLL? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: James ®
10/10/2002, 09:43:39
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I thought it meant Re: Troll Taxonomy -- James Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jerome ®
10/11/2002, 22:50:26
Author Profile Mail author
A Beast/ Creature (Mind 666: so fanatical in what it knows is not open to learn from others) ascending out of the Bottomless Pit (Past: beliefs) roaming the earth seeking whom it may devour into its' belief system/ structure.
Jerome#>
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: What's a TROLL? Re: Re: What's a TROLL? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jerome ®
10/11/2002, 22:42:36
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Anti-troll Re: Mr. Cow, Sikes is a TROLL!! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/10/2002, 03:35:21
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: The Real Truth Re: Re: The Real Truth -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/08/2002, 09:38:07
Author Profile Mail author
Job 40:15-24 sez: Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly. His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can aproach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds of the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?
The Behemoth in the above verses is most likely a dinosaur probably a Brachiosaurus or a Plesiosaurus. Also, many fossils of dinosaur tracks show human footprints as well. So why do EVILutionists ignore the evidence that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time? Apparently, they fear any data that support the young Earth. So much for being objective!
Once again the ignorance of atheism rears its ugly head. If you contemplate the word of the Lord, you may possibly begin to grasp the concept that GOD ALMIGHTY made the animals first! Yet you still search for a missing link that doesn't exist in thought that we "evolved" from the ape. What a bunch of rubbish!
Please, do yourself a favor, click here: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm to enlighten yourself.
Bette Jean Sikes
Jesus is Just Alright with Me!
Modified by BJ Sikes at Tue, Oct 08, 2002, 09:59:18
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Dare I ask? Re: Re: The Real Truth -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/10/2002, 03:33:01
Author Profile Mail author
Where are these fossils showing footprints of humans and dinosaurs?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Dare I ask? Re: Dare I ask? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/11/2002, 02:17:58
Author Profile Mail author
Meanwhile you need to get yourself a good psycho doctor to take care of you lil attention problem, dear. I'm sure the Bible will make a lot more sense to you once that's taken care of.
Kind Regards,
Bette Jean Sikes
Jesus is Just Alright With Me!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The Evidence! Re: Dare I ask? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/11/2002, 03:30:55
Author Profile Mail author
This photo shows a plesiosaur that washed up on a beach in Monterey, California in 1935. This is evidence that dinosaurs didn't become extinct millions of years ago.
Bette Jean Sikes
Jesus is Just Alright With Me!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Like wow! Re: The Evidence! -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/11/2002, 07:38:24
Author Profile Mail author
Actually, what is that notch on the side of the cheek? Do you have any other photos...something looks very strange and suspect about this photo. Is there a photo of the rest of the body?
I believe it was Carl Sagan that said something like the following, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
Yes he was an atheist. He wrote a number of books debunking a lot of pseudoscience. I think he just wrote them for fun, he didn't take alot of pseudoscience seriously. He wrote extensively about "Worlds in Collision" which was just too easy to debunk and criticize.I certainly hope your not basing your convictions about dinosaurs on just one photo. Probably not, let me guess you have more citations from the Bible?
Modified by james at Fri, Oct 11, 2002, 07:46:22
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Evidence! Re: The Evidence! -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/11/2002, 19:48:30
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I had no idea plesiosaurs look just like dolphins. Re: The Evidence! -- BJ Sikes Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Barbarian ®
10/11/2002, 20:16:09
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Birds? Loch ness monster Re: I had no idea plesiosaurs look just like dolphins. -- Barbarian Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/11/2002, 23:16:08
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Plesiosaur.shtmlPBS did a wonderful documentary dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds, many believe that dinosaurs they were warm blooded.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
More Evidence EVILutionists Wish Didn't Exist! Re: Re: The Real Truth -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: BJ Sikes ®
10/12/2002, 00:55:56
Author Profile Mail author
Evidence for Creation
Earth's Spin Rate of Earth's spin is slowing. If billions of years old, earth would spin much slower today. Life on Mars? No evidence of life on Mars or anywhere else in the Universe. Canals on Mars do not necessarily indicate water is on Mars. Canals may be created by jets of carbon dioxide.
Wired News October 12, 2000 NASA American Research Center
Rare Earth, Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Copernicus Books, 2000Moon Distance The distance between the Earth and its moon is gradually widening. Over billions of years the moon would be much farther away from the Earth. Moon's Hot Interior Earth's moon has a hot interior. This is evidence of a young origin.
Nicholas Short, Planetary Geology, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1975, pp. 175-84Short Period Comets There are short-period comets in outer space whose life expectancy is less than 10,000 years. Evolutionary astronomers mistakenly claim short-period comets originate from imaginary "Oort Cloud." Speed of Light Theory: If the stars are millions of light years away, and humans can see them flicker in the night sky, then the universe must be very old.
New facts: Not enough time has elapsed for light speeding at 186,282 miles per second to have traversed the entire universe. Yet light has reached the entire expanse of the cosmos, meaning light has travelled faster than the known speed of light at some time in the past. Researchers estimate light may have travelled 1069 times faster at the beginning of the universe. This means the universe is smaller and younger than most scientists believe.
New York Times, May 30, 2000 and
The London Times, Dec. 24, 2000Spinning Planets If the universe began with a "big bang," all the planets would spin in the same direction. Venus and Uranus do not! In addition, 6 of the Solar System's 63 moons rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons oriting in both directions.
Astronimical Almanac for the Year 1989 (WASH. DC U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989) p. E88Spiral Galaxies The arms from distant spiral galaxies, like the Centaurus galaxy shown, should have less twist than closer galaxies. Instead, the twist in both distant and near galaxies is about the same, evidence that light may have travelled faster than the know speed of light at some time in the past which serves as evidence for a young rather than old universe.
Walt Brown, In the Beginning, Center for Scientific Creation, 1996
Carbon Dating
Carbon dating is flawed. Wood freshly cut out of living trees has been carbon dated at 10,000 years, and living mollusks (such as snails) dated at 2,300 years. Carbon dating falsely assumes a constant rate of decay. B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958; M. Keith and G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634
Circular Reasoning
Index fossils are used to date the rock layers, and rock layers are used to date the fossils.
Fossilized Logs
EVILutionary theory mistakenly claims the oldest rocks and fossils are found in the deepest earth layers, a belief called uniformitarianism.
