Dave Thomas posted Entry 849 on February 25, 2005 08:44 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/847

We’ve all heard the Creationist refrain (also a Dennis Miller joke), “If humans evolved from Monkeys, Why are there still Monkeys?”

See http://our.homewithgod.com/whereeaglesdare/darwin.htm for a badly spelled example:

Darwin claims that because we are similar to monkeys in some ways, then we must have evolved from them. So whay are there still monkeys around then?

This aphorism is also discussed here, here, here, here, here,  and most bizarrely here.

As a Friday Treat, I’m posting a Torte and a Re-Torte about this curious argument.

http://www.nmsr.org/torte.JPG

Have a great weekend!
-Dave

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #18091

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 25, 2005 8:46 PM (e)

It is not as good as mine.

“If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?”

I used that on a creationist in last fall and got the most confused look back.

Comment #18095

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 9:26 PM (e)

“If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?”

Reed - that is a gem. I’m going to plagiarize it shamelessly. Hope you don’t mind.

Comment #18099

Posted by Henry J on February 25, 2005 11:21 PM (e)

Hmmm.
If mammals came from reptiles, why are there still lizards?
If reptiles came from amphibians, why are there still frogs?
If amphibians came from fish, why are there still fish?
If birds came from dinosaurs, why are there still… oops, never mind that one.

Comment #18100

Posted by Les Lane on February 25, 2005 11:40 PM (e)

This is convenient. I just finished a page on a (superficial) form of reasoning one step up from parroting aphorisms.

Comment #18102

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 12:01 AM (e)

Uh oh, creationists just brought out the intellectual heavies

Comment #18103

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 12:26 AM (e)

It’s not a good idea to complain about someone else’s spelling and then misspell “Protestantism”.

Comment #18110

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 2:26 AM (e)

It’s striking how weak your reasoning is. I mean, atheists/evolutionists are always trumpeting their ability in critical thinking and logic.

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics. Nor did Adam evolve from dust.

Any ‘confused’ look you saw in Christians probably had to do with them reacting to your uni-brow and lack of a forehead…

Comment #18112

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 2:59 AM (e)

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics.

So what do you suppose they were protesting against, moron?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555703/Protestantism.html

Protestantism, one of the three major divisions of Christianity, the others being Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Protestantism began as a movement to reform the Western Christian church in the 16th century, resulting in the Protestant Reformation, which severed the reformed churches from the Roman Catholic Church. The declared aim of the original reformers was to restore the Christian faith as it had been at its beginning, while keeping what they thought valuable from the Roman Catholic tradition that had developed during the intervening centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther

Martin Luther (originally Martin Luder or Martinus Luther) (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German theologian of the Christian religion and an Augustinian monk whose teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian

The Augustinians, named after Saint Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430), are several Roman Catholic monastic orders

Comment #18118

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 6:17 AM (e)

Protestants recovered apostolic Biblical doctrine (i.e. what existed prior to the Roman Catholic church). It’s not evolution. It’s like a modern day human ‘evolving’ into Adam. Think next time.

Comment #18119

Posted by Jim Foley on February 26, 2005 6:20 AM (e)

And there’s also my treatment of the argument, at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes, from which the EvoWiki article is probably derived.

In response to ts: Steve is right on one point; Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

In response to Steve: that Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics is true but irrelevant. The point is that when an original population splits, and one part becomes something else (Protestants from Catholics, humans from apes) there’s no reason why the rest of the original population should likewise change.

Comment #18120

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 6:33 AM (e)

Jim Foley wrote:

In response to ts: Steve is right on one point; Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

You’re as big a moron as he is, since a) there’s intraspecies evolution b) the word “evolve” is not limited to its biological sense. At least you managed to grasp that this isn’t relevant to the analogy.

Steve wrote:

Protestants recovered apostolic Biblical doctrine (i.e. what existed prior to the Roman Catholic church).

As noted in the citation, the Protestants kept “what they thought valuable from the Roman Catholic tradition that had developed during the intervening centuries”. Not that this matters.

Think next time.

You’re a cretin.

Comment #18121

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 6:44 AM (e)

Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

Just to make this crystal clear to the dunderheads: The claim was that Protestanism (sic) evolved from Catholicism, not that Protestants evolved from Catholics. And it did, regardless of whether it reclaimed earlier thought. You could make the point that this weakens the analogy, but it’s a pathetically silly objection that misses the point, namely that the question “whay (sic) are there still monkeys around then?” is imbecilic.

Comment #18125

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 8:36 AM (e)

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around? Come on, evolutionists! Dip into your post-modern ‘language means what we want it to mean’ bag of conceits and dance for us an energetic little retreat…

Comment #18126

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 8:56 AM (e)

ts wrote:

You’re as big a moron as he is…

Ummmm…. Jim Foley’s no moron. His Hominid Fossils article over at talkorigins.org has received accolades in magazines like Science and The American Biology Teacher.

So careful with that friendly fire! (And better yet, save the epithets like “moron” for more appropriate fora like the talk.origins newsgroup.)

Comment #18127

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 9:02 AM (e)

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around?

Because, as was noted in the references sited in the article (perhaps you too stupid or lazy to read them, or afraid of what you might learn), humans and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor. Your question is like asking someone who says you’re descended from your grandfather why no one in between you and your cousin is around. Now imagine going back a lot more generations than your grandfather, and imagine that your cousin looks like a monkey ….

Comment #18130

Posted by Dan S. on February 26, 2005 9:06 AM (e)

If you stop feeding the troll, it might get disgruntled and wander off …

-Dan S.

Comment #18131

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 9:12 AM (e)

It just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate… And, um, right, by the way. Maybe though just entertain the possibility that you have a Creator. Your pile of tiddly-winks you have to build and attempt to balance on the head of a pin is such baggage for you to have to carry around all the time. And such changes! “Those damn scientists coming up with their new discoveries and making us evolutionists have to change our story constantly!!! Damn them! But, to carry on the fight against God (which we will win, at least it’s too scary to think otherwise at this point) we just have to soldier on with it (not that I am for anything to do with ‘soldiering’, mind you)…”

Comment #18132

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 9:13 AM (e)

Ummmm …. Jim Foley’s no moron.

Then he shouldn’t act like one. The fact that Protestants and Catholics can interbreed obviously has no bearing on whether Protestantism evolved from Catholicism, any more than the fact that Americans, Europeans, and Indians can interbreed has any bearing on whether English evolved from Indo-European languages. Nor does the fact that dogs and wolves can interbreed show that dogs didn’t evolve from wolves. Nor does the fact that much of neo-con political philosophy evolved from Trotskyism mean that neo-cons and Trotskyites can’t interbreed. etc.

Comment #18133

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 9:18 AM (e)

If you stop feeding the troll, it might get disgruntled and wander off …

“Steve is right on one point” was troll filet mignon; who could resist such a tasty morsel?

Comment #18134

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 9:20 AM (e)

Les Lane pointed us to a website that cited the testimony of a seventh-grade student:

Seventh-grader Spencer Genson argued at the meeting, “I believe my rights as a United States citizen are being violated by these teachings … I have a bible and when I read my bible it tells me that I’m a descendant from Adam and Eve, but when I read my curriculum in school it tells me that I come from a monkey.” Rather than becoming defensive, the school board lauded Spencer’s initiative and intellect in pursuing his convictions.

Genson, an honors student at Leverette Junior High, says the first amendment of the Constitution allows him the right to free speech – then noted references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance said before each board meeting. “If a lot of us believe in God then why isn’t Christianity taught in the public school system. We are reading in social studies about Hinduism and Buddhism, but I don’t hear a thing about Christianity,” said Genson.

1. His curriculum doesn’t tell him he’s not a descendant of Adam and Eve. It’s not the curriculum that has difficulties reasoning here.

2. The kid would do better to read the Boy Scout Handbook – there is no curriculum in America, and certainly no textbook published in 80 years (if ever) that says humans came from monkeys. The Boy Scout Handbook would instruct the kid in the importance of being honest, the importance of being helpful to others, and in the importance of reverence for the views of others. The kid appears to have missed those lessons in whatever ethics and morals classes he’s taking in whatever venue. Of course, it may be that he is unable to discern fact from fiction because he hasn’t fully absorbed the curriculum at his school. That’s not a plea against evolution then – it’s an implicit plea to teach the facts first, teach the skills necessary to discern the facts, and quit clouding the kids’ minds with bizarre claims.

3. The First Amendment allows the kid the right of free speech – he may publicly wonder why the school doesn’t teach Christianity as the one true religion. Of course, the First Amendment is also part of a Constitutional structure which forbids the government from making such advocacy, the better to protect the kid’s right to the free exercise of his religion. This is an issue for his social studies classes, especially history and government. It appears that the kid has had his own intellectual well poisoned against what the schools offer, and he’s rejecting all of it. That’s not Christianity, it’s nihilism. Of course, he’ll never know that from his current knowledge base. Is that a problem his Sunday school teachers worry about? They should.

4. If he’s missing the parts in his social studies books about Christianity, he’s deficient in reading skills and the use of a book’s table of contents and index. Especially after the Texas schoolbook adoption processes, all U.S. social studies books emphasize Christianity’s role in history and culture. The kid needs to read the book.

5. What sort of a parent doesn’t lovingly correct these errors in a kid’s testimony before letting him make his plea in public?

6. What sort of a school board doesn’t know the content of their own curricula, so that they could make acknowledgement of what is really taught in the courses they are legally responsible to supervise? This is not a case against teaching evolution. It’s a case against electing public officials who abdicate, shirk, or avoid their duties without thought.

Comment #18135

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 9:21 AM (e)

>neo-con political philosophy evolved from Trotskyism

Been picking up Alice-in-Leftistland memes from the ‘fully retreated into unreality’ leftwing websites have you? And you call others ‘moron’?

You’re currently living in darkness and illusion, ts. Read the Word of God. Just put your vanity and worldly pride on a leash for a portion of your day and make the effort to read the Word of God. No, you won’t understand it at first. No, you won’t ‘agree’ with what you read. Yes, you will think it’s ‘stupid’. Just do yourself a favor an download it. Give your at least a chance to ascend out of the darkness you are currently held prisoner in. Just give yourself a chance, ts… Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Now it is high time to awake out of sleep…

Comment #18136

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 9:26 AM (e)

It is Christians that have brought to the atheists and other anti-Christ parasites of the world technological and scientific advancement.

All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.

Comment #18137

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 9:36 AM (e)

One poster named Steve said:

It just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate … And, um, right, by the way. Maybe though just entertain the possibility that you have a Creator. Your pile of tiddly-winks you have to build and attempt to balance on the head of a pin is such baggage for you to have to carry around all the time. And such changes! “Those damn scientists coming up with their new discoveries and making us evolutionists have to change our story constantly!!! Damn them! But, to carry on the fight against God (which we will win, at least it’s too scary to think otherwise at this point) we just have to soldier on with it (not that I am for anything to do with ‘soldiering’, mind you) … “

Ah, then the humorous rebuttal to creationist boilerplate misled you into thinking this was a discussion where tossing boilerplate is considered argument?

Maybe you should entertain the thought that what you regard as a creator asks you to be respectful of the views of others, the facts, and creation – and that maybe, just maybe, you’ve been infected with enough hubris that you don’t see that you’ve strayed from defending the idea that there is a supernatural creator to attacking knowledge and defending ignorance.

Additional facts don’t plague the scientist, not even those who study and understand Darwinian idea. New discoveries make it more difficult, day-by-day and year-by-year, to defend attacks on the science that heals the sick and feeds everybody.

In short, the justification you cite for attacking evolution is theologically unsound, Steve.

Comment #18138

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 9:40 AM (e)

Um, Steve, don’t look now, but your history fly is down.

It was Christians who brought us the theory of evolution, too.

Let the facts get in the way of your rant, just this once. Go get another cup of coffee, think about the fact that at least 40% of scientists in America are believers (my experience is it’s much higher in biology). Consider that Charles Darwin is interred in Westminster Abbey and that maybe, just maybe, there is more to science and theology than tossing “boilerplate.”

Comment #18139

Posted by Steve M. on February 26, 2005 9:41 AM (e)

PBS coverage of the Kansas debate

DOUGLAS PHENIX (Chemist and Presbyterian Minister): Imagine that there was a high school with a very good baseball team, which had played for many years and over time had developed lots of winning strategies until one day, the tennis coach started accusing the baseball coach of unfairly discriminating against the tennis team by refusing to allow the baseball players to play by the rules of tennis.

DE SAM LAZARO: Science calls for natural, empirical explanations, he said, not supernatural ones. And science class cannot be a democracy.

SAM WINE (Astronomy Teacher): What comes next? What other groups will demand and expect equal time in the science standards?

DE SAM LAZARO: As if on cue, there was a tongue-in-cheek response.

Photo of ANDREW STANGL Mr. STANGL: When the schools undertake to teach alternative creation theories, I want mine included. It is my belief that flying saucers with aliens from the planet Druesbud, another universe, landed on Earth 4,400 years ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week826/cover.html

Comment #18140

Posted by David Heddle on February 26, 2005 9:49 AM (e)

think about the fact that at least 40% of scientists in America are believers (my experience is it’s much higher in biology)

My experience is that is is much higher in physics thatn biology. No matter, the truth is, to find hard core athiests you’ll have better luck in the humanities (and even “religious studies”) than in the physics department.

Comment #18142

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 10:06 AM (e)

Just the fact that the kid was a 7th grader already led me to believe he hadn’t read or heard a thing about Evolution as its properly taught. My 7th grade (GT) bio class barely touched the subject (but certainly didn’t say “descended from monkeys”, just something to the effect of “related to like cousins”). The intro-to-evolution stuff (which is the curriculum being debated) is all at the high school level.

So really, the kid had no pretense for speaking up there just from that contextual value. Having a high school 11th grader who had already been through the evolution instruction in the biology class speak would have been far more relevant and applicable.

in the end, using this 7th grader was strictly a public-opinion play, trying to get the “out of the mouths of babes” innocent truth that had no relevance (or truth) to the debate at hand. and by doing so, the parents and school system have cost this kid his innocense. this kid was used as a puppet by others with an agenda, and he may never know it happened or why.

Comment #18146

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 10:16 AM (e)

It really surprises me, the humorlessness a few commenters have exhibited here. Lighten up, folks!

Comment #18147

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 10:19 AM (e)

I suspect that there are Creationist biology teachers out there who are telling their students “according to the theory of evolution, we came from monkeys (if you can believe that, heh heh)”.

Comment #18148

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 10:21 AM (e)

It really surprises me, the humorlessness a few commenters have exhibited here. Lighten up, folks!

That you find it worth commenting on suggests that you’re taking it too seriously.

Comment #18152

Posted by GCT on February 26, 2005 10:41 AM (e)

Ed Darrell wrote:

2. The kid would do better to read the Boy Scout Handbook — there is no curriculum in America, and certainly no textbook published in 80 years (if ever) that says humans came from monkeys. The Boy Scout Handbook would instruct the kid in the importance of being honest, the importance of being helpful to others, and in the importance of reverence for the views of others.

Hmmm, that’s not entirely true. The Boy Scouts teach tolerance, so long as it isn’t tolerance for gays or atheists.

5. What sort of a parent doesn’t lovingly correct these errors in a kid’s testimony before letting him make his plea in public?

The sad thing is that his parents probably put him up to it.

Comment #18153

Posted by GCT on February 26, 2005 10:46 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

You’re currently living in darkness and illusion, ts. Read the Word of God. Just put your vanity and worldly pride on a leash for a portion of your day and make the effort to read the Word of God. No, you won’t understand it at first. No, you won’t ‘agree’ with what you read. Yes, you will think it’s ‘stupid’. Just do yourself a favor an download it. Give your at least a chance to ascend out of the darkness you are currently held prisoner in. Just give yourself a chance, ts … Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Now it is high time to awake out of sleep …

Let me get this straight. You came onto a science blog about evolution to proselytize to the atheistic evolutionists? That is pure comedic gold. Your post had me rolling.

Comment #18156

Posted by Bill Ware on February 26, 2005 10:54 AM (e)

From Steve:

“All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.”

From Your Worst Nightmare (comment #189) at Pharyngula

“All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Again, contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.”

Steve says: “It [sic] just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate … “

Whose boilerplate is that again, Steve?

Comment #18157

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 10:56 AM (e)

Actually I came here after someone familiar with this site kept linking it at another site where this debate was going on.

Man, not animals, was made in the image of God. Man was created by God in the image of God. The ‘theory of evolution’ exists solely to deny this and to push atheist, anti-Christ dogma. The fact that evolutionists can’t prove their theory without using all the conceits of post-modernist deceit (“Is it time to move the goal posts again, comrades?”), not to mention all the forgeries and frauds, yet still stand by their atheist, anti-Christ dogma is all the proof you need to see what the ‘theory of evolution’ is and exists for.

Comment #18158

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 10:59 AM (e)

Troll commentary:

The only smart moron is an oxymoron

Comment #18159

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 11:00 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around?

What do you call apes?

Comment #18160

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 11:04 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

The ‘theory of evolution’ exists solely to deny this and to push atheist, anti-Christ dogma.

That part’s cool and all, but I really got into it for the babes.

Comment #18161

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:08 AM (e)

Apes I call…apes. Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being? What happened to that part of your evolutionist dogma, atheists? Have the courage of your convictions, boys and girls! Oh, but you say the ‘theory of evolution’ is not really science but a false religion used to fight God and God’s influence in the world? Well, that’s what I’ve been telling you all along…

Comment #18165

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 11:18 AM (e)

The Boy Scouts teach tolerance, so long as it isn’t tolerance for gays or atheists.

Don’t confuse the legal position of the current national board with what Scouting actually teaches. Check the Handbook, if in doubt.

Comment #18168

Posted by Keanus on February 26, 2005 11:24 AM (e)

The putative “Steve” on this thread writes from the email address “me@somewhere.com”. “YWN” over on Pharyngula writes from the similar, and probably related (genetically), “me@here.com”. I would conjecture that the two are one and the same prattler putting forth an image from which most Christians cringe, at least all those I know. From his posturing, whether from here or somewhere, he/she/it seems to have little need for mental nourishment . Such organisms are best left unfed, since they usually reject any attempt to supply them with an intelligent diet.

Comment #18169

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 11:25 AM (e)

Hey Stevey, let’s be careful with the post-modernism references you’ve been peppering your idiocy with. What do you think is more post-modern?: 1.) The evolutionist perspective that through using our reason, we can come to, at least partially, some degree of truth about ourselves and the universe. or, 2.) the Creationist perspective that largely ignores science and says that we can never come to know “true” reality here on this earth, and that places the autonomy of reason within the individual, so that whatever irrational idea pops in your head, you can justify it because it seems like it’s true.

If you suspect example 1 doesn’t mesh very well with post-modernism, you’d be right. Evolutionism is nowhere near a post-modern doctrine.

Oh, but you’re right about us atheists. Every night I go home and eat babies and worship the devil I don’t believe in. But, shhh, it’s a secret.

Comment #18170

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 11:27 AM (e)

Apes I call … apes. Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being?

Um, no, that was racists who were trying to justify slavery. Darwin was opposed to slavery – surely you know the famous, true story about his big fight with Capt. FitzRoy aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. FitzRoy defended slavery as Biblical, Darwin said it was wrong. Creationists were still using that argument, that African humans were a different species, as late as 1900.

What happened to that part of your evolutionist dogma, atheists? Have the courage of your convictions, boys and girls!

My Christian beliefs require me to call bias and untruthfulness for what it is. Steve, you’re way out of line. You can repent gently and get an education, or continue in ignorance. Scientists, especially those on this board, are willing to provide you with all the information you need or can stand. You have to make the choice, however.

Oh, but you say the ‘theory of evolution’ is not really science but a false religion used to fight God and God’s influence in the world? Well, that’s what I’ve been telling you all along …

The question is, where is one to grant credence? Either the creation God gave us reveals itself honestly, or Darby was right.

Evolution gives us diagnoses and treatments for diabetes. Evolution gives us treatments and cures for cancer, and better antibiotics to defeat rapidly evolving pathogens. Evolution gives us the hope of another green revolutino to vanquish hunger.

Before you get too far astray, consider what the signs were of Jesus’ divinity, as related in the New Testament. Odd, isn’t it? Those are the areas where applied evolution theory produces the greatest benefits to humans.

As I suggested before, relax, get a cup of coffee, and see if you can figure out what really is going on. The cock of evolution crows three times before it dawns on the hardcore creationist, often. But why wait?

Comment #18171

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:27 AM (e)

Keanus, what are your favorite books? Put another way, what books have most influenced you? Also, what activities do you consider to have been most central in your development and general education?

Comment #18172

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:34 AM (e)

While Keanus sits in the corner and scratches his monkey forehead, suspecting a trap, but not quite able to discern what kind of trap it is…

Your claims of your ‘theory of evolution’ “curing cancer” are touching. Medical science (and every other real science) throwing you evolutionists a bone (in the spirit of an enemy of my enemy…) here and there doesn’t put you on centerstage of any discovery… You are humored by real science.

Comment #18173

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 11:37 AM (e)

Hey Steve…

If you came to my house to spout the nonsense that you’ve been spouting here, I’d turn the hose on you. And my garden hose comes equipped with a SuperBlast™ power nozzle.

Just thought I’d let you know…

Comment #18174

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 26, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

The scientists who developed evolutionary biology were mostly Christians, and very few of them were actively anticlerical. While evolution has obviously become a symbol of atheism for some traditionalists like Steve here, most of the sociologists of religion I’ve read doubt that scientific discoveries have much to do with the rise of modern secularism. Other factors—mass culture, urbanization, increasing standards of living—were at work. If people were generally rational, Darwinism may be a good reason not to believe, but it isn’t a major reason that people don’t believe.

Comment #18175

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

caerbannog: Careful talking about assaulting real Christians. We have a bodyguard of angels to deal with giddy-violent atheists like you… It’s the same reason your murderous fascism and communism couldn’t harm America…

Comment #18176

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 11:46 AM (e)

Now, honestly Steve, what is so special about America for Christians? Why not Germany, birth of protestantism? Why not Italy? Why not Isreal? All of those places have something to do with Christianity. America isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Not even once! Go look! I suspect it has something to do with NASCAR and Pat Robertson, but if both those things relocated to, say, Sri Lanka, would bodyguard angels protect you there? The whole thing is bewildering to me.

Comment #18178

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:58 AM (e)

Neither is Germany or Geneva mentioned in the Bible. If you want to read deeper that’s another matter, but it doesn’t matter. America was founded by Christians. The very name America means Kingdom of God (I know, your school textbooks tell you a different story, but that story was always a little shady, though, wasn’t it?)…

England and America are the center-of-gravity of the Chrstian nations and peoples. America today obviously is less taken over by the apostacy, but notice England, even in deep apostacy, still has the instincts to do the right thing such as be America’s steadfast ally in the war on Satan’s Awakening Kingdom.

Yes, America is God’s country, Mike P. The light and defender of freedom and the nation that brings the Word of God to the entire planet.

Comment #18179

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 11:58 AM (e)

steve wrote:

caerbannog: Careful talking about assaulting real Christians. We have a bodyguard of angels to deal with giddy-violent atheists like you … It’s the same reason your murderous fascism and communism couldn’t harm America …

Hah! Your bodyguard of angels will be quaking in fear at the sight of my SuperBlast™ power nozzle. So bring ‘em on, Steve!

Comment #18180

Posted by Glenn Branch on February 26, 2005 12:01 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #18182

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:02 PM (e)

Angels are very powerful, caerbannog; but they don’t have to hurt you to neutralise you.

Comment #18183

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 12:03 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

Apes I call … apes.

But your quesiton was about monkeys, not apes. You specifically asked what would be inbetween (sic) monkeys and humans. That would be apes.

Now I suppose you’ll just shift the goal posts and ask for something inbetween (sic) apes and humans. And when someone brings up H. erectus or Australopithecus, you’ll just demand an infinte series of intermediates. Or you’ll just claim that everything which is not a human is automatically of the “ape kind” and therefore declare victory via tautology. I’ve seen it all before.

BTW people, don’t be so hard on “Steve”. Aside from the cool name, he does more to make creationists look bad than we ever could.

Comment #18184

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:07 PM (e)

The very name America means Kingdom of God (I know, your school textbooks tell you a different story, but that story was always a little shady, though, wasn’t it?) …

where the hell did you get this?

America is from Amerigo, which is an early Italian form of Henrico, or “Henry”. Henry is

From the Germanic name Heimerich which meant “home ruler”, composed of the elements heim “home” and ric “power, ruler”. –Source: Behind the Name

Comment #18186

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 12:08 PM (e)

steve wrote:

Angels are very powerful, caerbannog; but they don’t have to hurt you to neutralise you.

Ahhh… But my SuperBlast™ power nozzle has one big advantage over your angels. It actually exists! Now excuse me while I go in my garage to set the pressure regulator to the maximum recommended 60PSI in eager anticipation of you and your imaginary angels.

Comment #18188

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:28 PM (e)

>>>Schools like to teach that the continent was named for Amerigo
Vespucci, but they do not teach the meaning of his name. And
clergymen who have been to a Bible College or seminary and who have
studied Hebrew should know better. They should know that the Hebrew
word for kingdom sounds very much like ‘merica’. Merica = melookaw

The Latin masculine singular for “Amerigo” is “Amcricus” and
feminine singular is “America” (Israel is likewise feminine singular.)

The Gothic Language

The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel”
means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”–Kingdom of Heaven. Amel
Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”,
or “Himmelreich”.

And as you saw above, Strong’s Concordance gives the Hebrew
word “Meluwkah’ for kingdom.

The letter “l” and “r” under certain circumstances are
interchangeable. Thus the Hebrew word “Meluwkah” (pronounced “mel-oo-
kah”) became “Merukah”, this became “Amerucah” which in the Latin
form is “America”.

Thus “Amel
Ric”, “Emerich’, “himmelreich”, “Amerlukah”, “Amerukah”,
and “America”, became words for “The Kingdom of Heaven”.

America means Kingdom of Heaven

Comment #18189

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 12:33 PM (e)

I like to answer with “If people are descended from their grandmothers, why do grandmothers still exist?”

Comment #18190

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:34 PM (e)

Angels exist. You want proof? Have faith, and see them in action.

Comment #18192

Posted by buridan on February 26, 2005 12:39 PM (e)

Hey folks, let’s take the earlier advice of Dan S. and simply ignore steve. I know, it’s a simple pleasure to respond to an idiot but he’s getting his rocks off as well and I the last thing I’d want is to be the source of pleasure for a creationist. That’s the only stroke you’ll get from me steve.

Comment #18193

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:39 PM (e)

obviously a cut-n-paste job, but you didn’t answer my question: *where* did you get that.

I at least can name my sources.

Comment #18194

Posted by Dave Thomas on February 26, 2005 12:43 PM (e)

Oh… My… Gawd!!

I’ll fix my spelling error soon’s I can (which may not be till Monday depending on time & tech).

-‘Perhaps needing new glasses’ Dave

Comment #18197

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:49 PM (e)

>I at least can name my sources.

The ‘where’ of “where did you get that” can be answered by the etymology, no? Of course it can.

As for the source of it, I googled the text and couldn’t come up with anything. Maybe you could try yourself? The website may be defunct. I had copied that (with the >>> and to signal to the evolutionist that it was not my writing, and you sort of caught on, didn’t you!), as I was saying I had copied it to a forum a long while back and went back and retrieved it…

Maybe you can find the source and mock it based on that!

Comment #18198

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:52 PM (e)

what part of “i copied this from another website a while ago but i can’t seem to find the reference right now” was so hard to say?

Comment #18200

Posted by DaveScot on February 26, 2005 12:57 PM (e)

Don’t get your anal retentive panties in a bunch, evolutionists. “Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Comment #18201

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:57 PM (e)

Dude! Do you know you can google text? I googled sentences from the first paragraph of what I posted above and got no hits. I just googled the second paragraph and found the site! It’s fun! You should try it too!

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/Name.htm

And what is difficult to understand about a person posting something to a forum? You accuse like the devil!

Comment #18202

Posted by DonkeyKong on February 26, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

The real weakness of evolution is this….

If we evolved from the first ancestor then where is the first ancestor? How did it come into existance?

Certainly if an all powerful God created the first ancestor then a whole mountain of evidence showing evolution is less likely than intelligent design or full blown creationism 7 day. Most evolutionists will concede this but anti-Creationists will not.

So the whole theory of evolution rests on the first ancestor. The faith in this first ancestor is similiar to faith in God as there is no direct proof of this first ancestor.

An extream simplification of evolution is like this.

Child: I know all about reproduction because I was born from my mommie.

Mom: but where did I come from?

Child: That is unrelated to reproduction theory mommie.

Inability to explain where life comes from fails to explain where diversity of life comes from.

Comment #18203

Posted by John S on February 26, 2005 1:00 PM (e)

I posted this over at Pharyngula but “Steve” needs to read it again.

Christian clergy are starting to speak out in support of science while at the same time affirming their faith. So far 1362 clergy have signed an open letter with strong support of the teaching of evolution. A dozen of them are “Steves”. I don’t imagine that YWN or “Steve” will be impressed, but others of us who are Christian are grateful for the strong support of these clergy.

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

A few quotes from the statement are as follows.

“While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.
“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.”

Comment #18205

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 1:07 PM (e)

DK: there is plenty of research into abiogenesis (the creation of replicating molecules that become self-replicating that eventually increase in complexity to the point where one may or may not call them “life”, but at least the decision point can be reached). yes, its out of scope of the specific realm of research and theory called “Evolution”, but it is an important part of biochemistry and cosmology. And even within that research, there are signs that “selection” and “evolution” played a role in the development of those molecules to the point of RNA.

Evolution is not flawed because it has (wisely) chosen to limit its scope to that which the available evidence could support. No, evolution doesn’t discuss “the first species”, because such an ancestor doesn’t, in itself, really do much to explain the diversity. its not as relevant to the theory (or its application to science) as the process of selection.

Comment #18206

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Those are Christians that belong to the umbrella church organisation called ‘Whatever the Devil Says’. Those kind of Christians have been around forever. You see, in the visible church there are wheat and tares. The tares self-identify as Christians. In the invisible church of which Christ is the head and that is made up of his elect from all time there are no tares, and this statment was not signed by any of the Christians in that church.

Comment #18207

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:13 PM (e)

Comment #18205… No post-modern tactics going on there…

Comment #18208

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 1:17 PM (e)

nothing “post-modern / changing the language” tactics at all in that. Darwin’s evolutionary theory specifically avoids the discussion of “the first species”, and that aspect of the theory of evolution is unchanged. that patterns similar to evolution of species happen at the biochemical level means that the forces involved may be related, but our knowledge at this time changes neither the definitions of evolution nor abiogenesis from the norm.

Comment #18209

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:21 PM (e)

Translation: We determine the ‘context’ of what we’re talking about. The ‘metanarrative’ is not owned by your foundationalism. Yes, we will attack God and we will determine how we are to have to defend ourselves. We control the language of what we are doing here. We are post-modernists…

Comment #18211

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 1:26 PM (e)

DaveIQ153Scot wrote:

“Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Did you score in the 99.997th percentile on the “verbal skills” component of the SAT?

Comment #18215

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 1:35 PM (e)

America means Kingdom of Heaven

Ah - so you subscribe to the D. James Kennedy school of history, the one that teaches the zodiac is the “Gospel in the Stars” and other weird and wonderful “historical facts”.

This is a very interesting piece on the real story behind the naming of America:

http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html

It does cast doubt on the Amerigo Vespucci naming story, but it discusses evidence for other equally plausible reasons for the name - the Mayans and Caribs, peoples who were encountered early on in the re-discovery of the New World, both hame words similar to America that could have been tranmitted via oral tradition.

Reverse etymological engineering of the word America via languages that were no longer in use is as highly dubious as saying the UK going to war in Iraq because of some divine cause (Satan’s awakening kingdom????)

In any case, it was at least another 150+ years (probably much longer) before the term America came to be talked of as the meaning the part of the American continent where the USA just happens to be. If you look at those early maps, America is deemed to be in places like Brazil and Nicaragua.

Steve, I’m not sure why you are bothering to spout your outlandish theories and beliefs on this board. The only possible outcome would be the reverse of what you claim to be looking try to do–save of our souls. Perhaps if you take pause and look a little more honestly at your actions and posts you will consider that this is all one big ego trip for you - to prove to yourself (and nobody else) that your beliefs and knowledge are far superior than ours.

I’ve been guilty of the same thing when I posted on some pseudoscience boards in the past, and I can recognise the signs - not very Christian to say the least.

Comment #18216

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 1:41 PM (e)

Steve, your bastardization of post-modernism is revolting. It’s like watching a Philosophy 101 student who slept through class every day butchering through a term paper. You have this delusion that we are out to destroy your precious God, and so you make your weak definition of an abstract philosophical concept fit around it. And then you use that as a rationality for your own delusion. You’re living in a cycle of fantasy and paranoia, man. Snap out of it.

Comment #18217

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 1:42 PM (e)

“The Latin masculine singular for “Amerigo” is “Amcricus” and
feminine singular is “America” (Israel is likewise feminine singular.)”

Wrong. Amerigo is masculine.
It is an Early medieval Italian form of HENRY which comes from Heimerich. And It is Americus which is the Latin form of Amerigo. Israel is masculine every frigging Jew and Bible schloar will tell you so. It comes From the Hebrew name Yisra’el meaning “God contended”.

“The Gothic Language

The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel”
means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”—Kingdom of Heaven. Amel
Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”,
or “Himmelreich”.”

Dead wrong in so many ways. Ric which comes from German does not mean Kingdom.

Strong’s version of Biblical definations is known to be outdated and known to contain errors.

Comment #18218

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:43 PM (e)

OK, I’ll strike Mike Walker off the list of those who can potentially be saved.

Only one nation, by the way, calls itself America. The world knows which nation is America. Just as the world knows which religion is the truth. People have something called conscience. It is buried, to a lesser or greater degree, in everybody, yet it is there and it knows the truth. There is no excuse. You are convicted by general revelation and certainly by special revelation (the Word of God), but it is the Word of God that can save. But you, Mike Walker, are stricken off the list. Pay no mind to the Word of God…

Comment #18220

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:46 PM (e)

The authoritative Firsttimeblogger says “Wrong!”. He gets the first sentence all tangled and confused, then he goes on to state what a Gothic word means by citing German! Herr Firsttimeblogger strikes again!

Comment #18221

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 1:51 PM (e)

“Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Come on now, be honest. “Monkey” in this context is being used as a term of ridicule by conjuring up the absurd and deliberately misleading image in people’s minds that evolutionists claim that their “granddaddy was a monkey”.

I don’t doubt that it is a highly effective tactic to use with the “great unwashed” but this soundbite is dishonest since it greatly distorts the true position of evolutionists.

Comment #18223

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 1:56 PM (e)

Alas! I hadn’t realized that sophomoric reasoning was a towering achievement lying in an alien dimension. At least I can save airfare to New Guinea for my amateur anthro.

Comment #18224

Posted by FredMcX on February 26, 2005 1:59 PM (e)

So what if America means Kingdom of Heaven or not? I can change my name to St Christopher and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to who or what I am. Further, since the Devil is well known for his ability to transform himself into an Angel of Light, resorting to such arguments is clearly to fall prey to the Devil who feeds on the superficial.

The sad thing is that this board is being overun by religious fruitcakes such as Steve; if America is the Kingdom of Heaven and Bush & Co are God’s right hand men then goodness me, whatever happened to Jesus’ message about love your neighbour and “he who lives by the sword will die by it” etc.? Is it any wonder that these nutjobs are clueless about evolution when they can’t even understand the book they claim to live by?

In reality Jesus’ words to the Pharisees apply here - they bind up the people with heavy loads while they themselves are not willing to lift even a finger. Steve et al. are staring into the bowels of Gehenna and, most likely, will find their way there with a heavy millstone wrapped around their necks unless they mend their ways and accept that lying in the name of God is a capital offence - don’t believe me, well, have a look at the book of Job.

Comment #18225

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 1:59 PM (e)

>Steve, your bastardization of post-modernism is revolting.

Revolting even!

>It’s like watching a Philosophy 101 student who slept through class every day butchering through a term paper.

Or, like a theologian who deals with post-modern nonsense from liberal and neo-orthodox theologians and man-centered academic philosopher/theologians…

>You have this delusion that we are out to destroy your precious God,

Your ‘theory of evolution’ has no other reason for being. You defend this fallen horse that is now a corpse with 687,495 and accumulating arrows in it, prop it up a thousand different ways, pretend to still ride it, for one reason alone: it is the best and most successful vehicle for atheist dogma the dupes of anti-Christ have ever had, and you’re not giving it up now…

>and

Yes, spit it out…

>and so you make your weak definition-

Your shivering with anger. Just relax. Say what you have on your mind…

>you make your weak definition of an abstract philosophical concept fit around it.

Yes…

>And then you use that as a rationality for your own delusion. You’re living in a cycle of fantasy and paranoia, man. Snap out of it.

Or! I recognize post-modern rhetorical devices and tactics when they appear. And they usually always appear in defense of something that is attempting to defile Truth (and truth with a ‘T’ means God’s Truth)… OK, they also appear in attempt to defile culture in general, or, western culture in particular, but that can be traced to anti-Christian sentiment as well!

Comment #18226

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 2:00 PM (e)

Gothic doesn’t mean German.

It refers to the 12th through the 15th century of Western Europe.

The only language that is Gothic was spoken by the Goth tribes of Eastern Germany which were exterminated. It is a dead language along with the other East German languages of Burgundian and Vandalic.

In no shape or form did Amerigo come from the Visigoths or
Ostrogoths.

Comment #18227

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 2:00 PM (e)

But you, Mike Walker, are stricken off the list. Pay no mind to the Word of God

Is that supposed to scare me? Touch a nerve did I? Good - perhaps you might learn some humility one of these days.

But my oh my, your ego’s even bigger than I suspected - are you sure that God is happy to see you meddling with his lists?

I think we have seen enough from this guy to know that rational arguments are futile - I apologise to everyone for making the effort.

Comment #18229

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 2:03 PM (e)

Gothic doesn’t mean German.

It refers to the 12th through the 15th century of Western Europe.

The only language that is Gothic was spoken by the Goth tribes of Eastern Germany which were exterminated. It is a dead language along with the other East German languages of Burgundian and Vandalic.

In no shape or form did Amerigo come from the Visigoths or
Ostrogoths.

Comment #18230

Posted by firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

Whoops! Error occured with the posting system. Sorry for the double post.

Comment #18231

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

>So what if America means Kingdom of Heaven or not?

Your right. It is much more relevant that America was founded by Christians, is a Christian nation today, and remains the light and defense of freedom in the world. America walks the walk. As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done. God’s people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now…

Comment #18232

Posted by firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 2:11 PM (e)

Whoops! Error occured with the posting system. Sorry for the double post.

Comment #18233

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 2:11 PM (e)

Comment #18229: and no such claim was being asserted in that post. You are now triply confused.

Comment #18234

Posted by steve on February 26, 2005 2:13 PM (e)

Comment #18110

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:26 AM

It’s striking how weak your reasoning is. I mean, atheists/evolutionists are always trumpeting their ability in critical thinking and logic.

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics. Nor did Adam evolve from dust.

Any ‘confused’ look you saw in Christians probably had to do with them reacting to your uni-brow and lack of a forehead …

I’m going to have to change the name under which I post. Though I’ve been posting under the single name Steve since PT began, every month new people show up and post under Steve. It wouldn’t bother me, we steves are an agreeable bunch, but occasionally the odd IDiot is named, or claims to be named, steve. Creationist Timmy had to update his name to Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy, to get with the times, maybe I will too.

Comment #18235

Posted by Ben on February 26, 2005 2:14 PM (e)

“You are the Devil,” William said then.
Jorge seemed not to understand. If he had been able to see, I would say that he stared at his interlocutor with a dazed look. “I?” he said.
“Yes. They lied to you. The Devil is not the Prince of Matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt.”

In case you’re wondering why I posted the above quote (from The Name of the Rose), I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and the beliefs of Jorge, the monk who killed whoever sought a book that he believed ‘destroyed a part of the learning that Christianity had accumulated over the centuries” because he believed that he was acting for God, as summed up by William of Baskerville, remind me all too much of the creationists who have a similar conviction that they must defend God (or at least their version of Christianity) and that scientific ignorance is of no consequence as long as they achieve this.

Comment #18236

Posted by FredMcX on February 26, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

Steve wrote

;As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct
;every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done. God’s ;people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now …

My kingdom is no part of the world ….. Jesus

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword …. Jesus

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out Devils, and in thy name done wonderful works? And then I will profess to them, I never knew you depart from me….Jesus

As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Comment #18237

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 2:18 PM (e)

Perhaps I’ve confused some. My intention was that sophomoric reasoning be a lower, not an upper, bound on reasoning used in comments on this blog.

Comment #18239

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 2:20 PM (e)

“Your right. It is much more relevant that America was founded by Christians, is a Christian nation today, and remains the light and defense of freedom in the world. America walks the walk. As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done. God’s people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now … “

I’m curious — was that whole “slavery” and “segregation” thingie part of “God’s Work” …. ?

You DO know that the US was founded by slave-owners, right?

Comment #18240

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 2:23 PM (e)

I’ve been put on some type of moderation (an unamed time limit or something). Probably a good thing for myself as well as evolutionists here. Since I’m effectively being shown the door I’ll leave (though that ‘Name of the Rose’ sword thrust I’ll have to admit was an absolute death blow ~:/ …….) Ouch. When Umberto Eco appears in the room God’s elect scatter to the tall grass!

Steve has his name back!

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Jesus saves! Don’t die a *fool, folks…

*God’s word for atheists (and evolutionists whatever they call themselves)…

Comment #18241

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 2:24 PM (e)

Just for the record, I believe the “new” Steve is parodizing fundamentalist American christians. And a pretty savage parody it is.

Comment #18242

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 2:28 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18243

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 2:36 PM (e)

One last post because the “Rev Dr” asked a good question:

Spirit speaks to Spirit (this requires regeneration); and the Word speaks to - and convicts - conscience. The truth of that Word is known by conscience. All compromising of that Word, all man-centered spinning of that Word, all self-will, vain, prideful demands on that Word don’t fool conscience. You know. When you are in rebellion you still know. You can’t escape being convicted by the Word. When a Christian speaks the Word to you you are convicted whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not or whether you recognize it or not. Your conscience knows.

Comment #18244

Posted by John A. Davison on February 26, 2005 2:52 PM (e)

“Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”

Thomas Henry Huxley, ironically also known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” and the coiner of the word “agnostic.”

I am inclined to believe that there is no God but I am also of the strong conviction that there had to have been one. That conviction constitutes the foundation of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

John A. Davison

Comment #18245

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 2:57 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18247

Posted by frank schmidt on February 26, 2005 2:58 PM (e)

When a Christian speaks the Word to you you are convicted whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not or whether you recognize it or not. Your conscience knows.

I suppose I should be scared. What pretentious un-Godly nonsense.

Comment #18248

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 2:59 PM (e)

Note, to those who’ve deserted this thread:

These threads offer not only biological insights (maybe not this thread), but psychological insights. It’s valuable to observe the reasoning of those with imbalanced verbal/analytical skills as well as those with analyticophobia and those who are immune to analytical thinking. These are people we meet every day in public schools and freshman biology classes. This is why education requires remarkable insights (let me know if you have some) as well as the patience of Job.

Comment #18249

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 3:15 PM (e)

Rev Dr: YOUR conscience knows.

Comment #18252

Posted by ~DS~ on February 26, 2005 3:48 PM (e)

Yeah why do you keep avoiding Lenny’s question? What makes your personal claims about what the Bible or any other religious text implies any more relevent than the next guy who disagrees with you? If two folks read the same words, one inteprets them to mean something which we can observe is clearly not correct, the other inteprets them to mean something different, which is clearly valid, what kind of reasoning would lead anyone to conclude the inconsistent interp is anything other than a mistake?
If we have differning claims about what a given portion of the Bible means, the only way to test them for accuracy-unless Da Lord-eh comes down from on high to settle it-is by comparing them to observation when possible. Antiscience interpretations of Genesis fail that process miserably, thus, those interps are inaccurate.

Comment #18254

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 4:04 PM (e)

These threads offer not only biological insights (maybe not this thread), but psychological insights. It’s valuable to observe the reasoning of those with imbalanced verbal/analytical skills as well as those with analyticophobia and those who are immune to analytical thinking. These are people we meet every day in public schools and freshman biology classes. This is why education requires remarkable insights (let me know if you have some) as well as the patience of Job.

You’re absolutely right - it just seems so incredible how these people have become so divorced from reality. I’m just so relieved that at least amongst the Western nations, the US is the only one that has to battle such nonsense. Of course there are nutters in other countries, but only here have the managed to achieve such organization and political clout.

The sad thing is that there is plenty of evidence that those on the right of the political spectrum (i.e. the neo-cons) espouse these “religious” doctrines purely to gain and hold political power. They manipulate the general population into getting riled up about the “hot button moral issues” simply because it wins them votes, not out of any real sense of moral outrage. Maybe those elected to the local school boards are “true believers” but they are just playing into the hands of the real power brokers like Karl Rove and his cronies.

Comment #18256

Posted by David Heddle on February 26, 2005 4:18 PM (e)

I haven’t been following this debate, but variants of this sort of question arise all the time, this time from Lenny:

So once again, I ask —- what makes your opinion any more authoritative than all the others. Why is your “conscience” any better than all the others. Why are your interpretations any more infallible than all the rest.

This is essentially “what makes you think you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?”

Until I meet someone who actually believes that what they believe is wrong, I’ll keep this in the category of profoundly useless questions. We all think we’re right, or else we’d change our position.

I just don’t get the point of the question, regardless of who is doing the asking.

But Lenny, if you (or anyone else) announce that any of the positions you hold are wrong, but you are going to stick to them, then I’ll change my mind.

Comment #18258

Posted by FredMcX on February 26, 2005 4:52 PM (e)

David Heddie,

The question you raise is simplistic and entirely misses the point; it isn’t a question of who is right or wrong, it is, as Lenny actually asked, a question of “why your _opinions_ are more authoritative than all the others.” The difference should be obvious.

One difference is the following - and it is a simple one; if I believe in evolution and you believe in creation by a Christian God, then I don’t make the argument that you will be condemned to everlasting torture if you don’t recant. Many Christians do make that argument - that is, they believe that they alone speak for God and have “The Truth”. Ergo, they have the right to impose their views on others. And they often try their best to so do. That is, it is not actually a question of who’s right and who’s wrong but one of who has the authority to declare that things are this way rather than some other way. Because Christians have no facts to go off they resort to arguments from authority.

Many Christians confuse faith with reality and, therefore, believe that the authority they think they have is sufficient to overide the superior opinions of others - superior because they are based on evidence.

It is quite illuminating that Christians so often meet the kind of question that Lenny raised by making the obvious point that it is ridiculous to conceive of anyone holding opinions that they think are wrong. Of course that is ridiculous - no one sane would hold opinions they thought were actually wrong. But it is a typical straw man argument.

In reality, it is ridiculous to conceive of anyone holding any opinion that they feel has no possibility of being wrong. That is why rational people accept that their opinions, no matter how strongly held, might in fact be wrong.

Comment #18259

Posted by David Heddle on February 26, 2005 5:03 PM (e)

FredMcX

That is why rational people accept that their opinions, no matter how strongly held, might in fact be wrong.

So, are you saying that you might be wrong, and that the opinion (whosever it is) that “if you believe in evolution you are hellbound”–you believe there is a chance that that opinion is correct?

I don’t think it is a strawman. (It seems that people argue on here from flashcards: Your comment is [a strawman, quote mining, dissembling, stupid, …]

I stand by my statement, that it is useless to ask someone why they think they are right. Ask something substantive instead.

I’ll have to check back later, I’m going to watch the NASCAR race.

Comment #18262

Posted by FastEddie on February 26, 2005 5:44 PM (e)

I would like to point out, mainly for the benefit of Steve, that accepting evolution does not equal atheism.

Comment #18263

Posted by Emily on February 26, 2005 5:51 PM (e)

Forgive me for being blunt Mr. Thomas, but that is a stupid arguement(comment 18,090). The reformation of a religion is quite different than the evolution of a species. Human beliefs and religions are subject to change, no creationist will argue against that. Matin Luther decided he disagreed with the Catholic Church, and, long story short, The Protestant Church was born. Some decided to remain with the Catholic Church, and some decided to join the Protestant Church. It is an entirely different matter to claim that million of years ago monkeys evolved into humans, yet there are stll monkeys around today. What caused some monkeys to evolve into humans and some to remain the same. That is the essential question. It couldn’t have been survival of the fittest because the more highly evolved monkeys would have survived and the type of monkeys that we have today would have died out. This is a simple arguement, I know, but I hope you will think about it.

Comment #18264

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 5:55 PM (e)

There are atheists that push evolutionism, and there are atheist’s useful idiots that push evolutionism…

Comment #18266

Posted by emily on February 26, 2005 6:09 PM (e)

Does the fact that it’s been proven countless times that a species cannot evolve into a different species bother anyone on this site. gosh.

Comment #18268

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 6:12 PM (e)

>Does the fact that it’s been proven countless times that a species cannot evolve into a different species bother anyone on this site. gosh.

It doesn’t bother them because (a) they don’t believe their theory of evolution either, and merely are engaged in pushing atheist dogma on society, and (b) their post-modern use of language and rhetorical tactics immunizes them from such ‘not relevant’ facts…

Comment #18269

Posted by emily on February 26, 2005 6:18 PM (e)

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life
arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is
scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

-Dr. George Wald,
Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Physiology

Comment #18270

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 6:19 PM (e)

“YOUR conscience knows.”

Uh, Steve, MY conscience says that you are a self-righteous arrogant prick who thinks, quite literally, that he is holier than everyone else.

YOUR conscience, I presume, says something different.

So once AGAIN, I will ask; what makes YOUR religious opinion any more authoritative than MINE or ANYONE ELSE’S.

Other than your say-so.

It’s a simple question, Steve. Why are you so reluctant to answer it?

Comment #18271

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 6:29 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18273

Posted by The Lord Jesus Christ on February 26, 2005 6:39 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

One last post because…

I’m sorry Steve but I’ve had to cross your name out of the Book of Life. We (Trinitas) do not admit liars into the Kingdom. You may want to stock up on Bermuda shorts. It tends to get very warm where you’re going.

I AM WHO I AM

Comment #18274

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 6:50 PM (e)

Dude, when I posted my last post you all then proceeded to ask me questions. I didn’t want to seem rude (ironic, I know), so I responded. Now you call me a liar. Bad form, bad form…

Comment #18276

Posted by The Lord Jesus Christ on February 26, 2005 6:57 PM (e)

You are really really crossed out of the Book of Life for addressing your Lord and Savior as “Dude.”

I AM WHO I AM

Comment #18277

Posted by Matt Inlay on February 26, 2005 7:30 PM (e)

From the OP:
We’ve all heard the Creationist refrain (also a Dennis Miller joke), “If humans evolved from Monkeys, Why are there still Monkeys?”

What’s the Dennis Miller joke?

Comment #18278

Posted by Mike on February 26, 2005 7:38 PM (e)

Steve said: Only one nation, by the way, calls itself America. The world knows which nation is America.

Uhh, actually we call ourselves the United States of America, a subset of the continent called North America, which shares it’s name with South America and Central America.

Comment #18279

Posted by Glenn Branch on February 26, 2005 7:46 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #18282

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 26, 2005 8:06 PM (e)

Emily,

Do a simple search for abiogenesis.

Comment #18283

Posted by Don T. Know on February 26, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 06:17 AM
Protestants recovered apostolic Biblical doctrine (i.e. what existed prior to the Roman Catholic church). It’s not evolution. It’s like a modern day human ‘evolving’ into Adam. Think next time.

They “recovered” it all right … providing the basis that has allowed Christendom to divide into hundreds of different sects and denominations. The damn heretical Catholics were merely placeholders until God decided to bless the world with the birth of the rabid anti-Semite, Martin Luther.

Comment #18284

Posted by The Messenger on February 26, 2005 8:20 PM (e)

I can’t let it go. I tried. Someone thought it was a gym?!?

“If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?”

I used that on a creationist in last fall and got the most confused look back.

Even a first grader should know the difference between “MADE” and “EVOLVED”. (okay, a third grader)

The creationist was probably wondering what level he would have to drop to in order to communicate.

Comment #18285

Posted by God on February 26, 2005 8:36 PM (e)

Even a first grader should know the difference between “MADE” and “EVOLVED”. (okay, a third grader)

The creationist was probably wondering what level he would have to drop to in order to communicate.

But… what’s the difference? In neither case would you expect the disappearance of all the starting material to coincide with the appearance of the product. Don’t you see? That’s sort of the point. I mean any first grader… oh, never mind.

Comment #18286

Posted by paperwight on February 26, 2005 8:50 PM (e)

You are really really crossed out of the Book of Life for addressing your Lord and Savior as “Dude.”

Dude, that’s so harsh. Oh, damn. I mean … Oh well, I didn’t want to be in your silly book anyway.

Comment #18287

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

Steve,

If God gave us monkeys, aren’t creationists redundant?

Comment #18288

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 9:27 PM (e)

>Uhh, actually we call ourselves the United States of America, a subset of the continent called North America, which shares it’s name with South America and Central America.

Hm. You see, Mike, despite the fact that the name America is spread from north to central to south of the two continents, it is only the United States that calls itself and is KNOWN by the world as ‘America’. Mexicans in Mexico don’t call themselves Americans… Now, back to your reading comprehension night classes…

>Already debunked in the Talk.Origins Archive Quote Mine Project.

Translation: that as well as all the other 1.2 million facts that disprove evolution have had boilerplate nyets written up by our lawyers and post-modern editors and are stored at website ‘x’. Please don’t pretend that evolution isn’t an easily debunked fraud.

>They “recovered” it all right … providing the basis that has allowed Christendom to divide into hundreds of different sects and denominations.

Your confused by differences in church polity and the administration of the sacraments which the Bible endorses, to a great degree. The real divide among Protestant churches is and always has been between conservative and liberal denominations and churches. There are snakes still in both camps, but that is the way of the world until Christ comes. A regenerate believer can discern the truth. (Go right, with discernment, and use the Bible as your authority and standard.)

>The damn heretical Catholics were merely placeholders until God decided to bless the world with the birth of the rabid anti-Semite, Martin Luther.

Regenerate Catholics are Christians, but their church is a monstrosity. Having said that it doesn’t surprise to hear an evolutionist side with the Beast of Rome. Interesting as well that, though no one group has ever cornered the market on anti-semitism over the ages (they often deserve it), the rabid antisemites of the world today are the leftist atheist socialists in Europe and America (not to mention Islamofascists). Lutherans are mostly liberal today as well.

>You are really really crossed out of the Book of Life for addressing your Lord and Savior as “Dude.”

I refer to God as my Father. As His adopted Son, and through the mediation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (and by the Holy Spirit within me) I am able to call God my Father.

Comment #18290

Posted by Mike on February 26, 2005 9:39 PM (e)

Steve said:

“Hm. You see, Mike, despite the fact that the name America is spread from north to central to south of the two continents, it is only the United States that calls itself and is KNOWN by the world as ‘America’. Mexicans in Mexico don’t call themselves Americans … Now, back to your reading comprehension night classes … “

Why don’t you go spend some time in Chile (that’s the southernmost country in South America, perhaps the honor is shared with Argentina) and call youself an American. The folks I spent time with found it quite amusing as they considered themselves “Americans” as well. Got a problem, take it up with them.

Commonly repeated mistakes are mistakes nonetheless.

Comment #18291

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 9:54 PM (e)

Yes, I can imagine how that conversation went: “You Chilians should be called Americans TOO! Because it’s United States-centric to call only Americ–, I mean, United Statesians Americans!”

“Eh… OK.”

You sound like you’re applying the same level of evidence to this subject as you do to evolutionism. Are Chilians ‘ugly Americans’ too? No, I don’t imagine so… They’re ‘noble, people-of-the-Earth Americans’…

Comment #18292

Posted by Mike on February 26, 2005 10:02 PM (e)

Imagine all you want, seems to be a skill of yours. Actually, I made the mistake of referring to the U.S. as America, to which a Chilean professor, Dr. Jaime Jiminez, informed me that he was an Chile was part of America as well. It was a mistake I’ll never make again.

The evidence I’m applying to this is pretty well accepted. Open an atlas you moron. (sorry, “ts” inspired me).

Comment #18293

Posted by Mike on February 26, 2005 10:04 PM (e)

pardon the typo in the second line…

Comment #18296

Posted by E on February 27, 2005 12:02 AM (e)

People like “Steve” are the reason why people like me don’t go to church anymore. Ignoranance, hypocracy, pick your favorite. You guys ever think about having a rating system to rate the trolls away into troll hell? At least there they can be free to argue about who’s denomination is going to have the biggest crown in heaven and not have to waste precious time “educating” us heathens on PT about the ToE.

Comment #18299

Posted by plunge on February 27, 2005 2:22 AM (e)

I’d be against people rating the trolls away. The fact is, trolls keep us fresh. As people that believe science is the pragmatically best way of conducting oneself in any inquiry for truth, we should all know that the discussion can never end. The evidence can never be looked over, rethought, rephrased, retested enough. It may be annoying, but that’s the price we pay for good science. We have to live or die by being able to marshall the evidence, time and time again. Creating shortcuts to simply filter away people based on their credentials, their beliefs, their arguments: that’s not science. It might do some good, but then it might also brush away a genuinely important point. It might make people see us as even more arrogant and aloof. It’s a recipe for an orthodoxy, not and ethic of science.

Comment #18300

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 3:15 AM (e)

Regenerate Catholics are Christians

—————————-

Says who. You?

Why, again, are your religious opinions any more authoritative than anyone else’s? Why, again, should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than to mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, my veternarian’s, or the kid who served me a Big Mac and fries for lunch today? What, again, makes you any more holy or divine than anyone else?

Other than your say-so?

Comment #18304

Posted by David Heddle on February 27, 2005 6:41 AM (e)

To those whose panties got all bunched up by the use of “America” as a synonym of the United States: get over it. That objection doesn’t even rise to the level of “pc”. That is just tilting at windmills. Around the world people use them interchangeably, even if only to chant “Death to America”. Or do you suppose they intend to include “Death to Chileans” and “Death to Canadians (the Maple leaf State)” as part of their movement?

Lenny persists in thinking it is very clever to ask someone why they are right.

Regenerate Catholics are Christians
——————————————
Says who. You?

This is a particularly weird objection, because “regenerate”, “Christian”, “being saved” are generally regarded as synonymous by all of Christendom. “Born again” would be too, except it has been co-opted by evangelical Protestants. The only fair objection to the statement “Regenerate Catholics are Christians” is to point out its redundancy, likewise for “Born Again Christian.”

People like “Steve” are the reason why people like me don’t go to church anymore.

I don’t believe that for a second. After arguing by flashcard, I think the next most common form of argument on this site is the “argument by convenient anecdote”.

Don T. Know

They “recovered” it all right … providing the basis that has allowed Christendom to divide into hundreds of different sects and denominations. The damn heretical Catholics were merely placeholders until God decided to bless the world with the birth of the rabid anti-Semite, Martin Luther.

It would be hard to argue that Luther was not anti-Semitic. It would be just as hard to argue that the Catholic Church was not anti-Semitic from the time of Ambrose (late 4th century) until the modern era. It would be hard to argue that Darwin was not a racist. Evolutionists argue (rightly so) that Darwin’s work should be evaluated independently of his personal views. They do not, however, readily extend that courtesy.

Comment #18305

Posted by John A. Davison on February 27, 2005 6:58 AM (e)

“Christianity hits the spot,
Twelve apostles, thats a lot,
Holy Ghost and a mother too,
Christianity’s the one for you.”

To be sung to the tune of Pepsi-Cola hits the spot.

So much for formal religions vis a vis science.

John A. Davison

Comment #18306

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 6:59 AM (e)

Comment #18304: On the mark.

Comment #18309

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 7:57 AM (e)

Lenny persists in thinking it is very clever to ask someone why they are right.

———————

Again, that was not the question. The question was, and still is, why anyone ELSE should think they are right.

And so far, I’m not getting any answer to that simple question.

Comment #18310

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 8:26 AM (e)

Lenny, I answered your questioned when you first posed it.

You didn’t get the answer, but you were answered.

People don’t even operate the way you are assuming. Much communication takes place above the text, beneath the text, in-between the text, so to speak (and substitute ‘words’ for text regarding direct communication).

Most always when a person changes the way they see something it’s not the immediate result of having been told something or had something argued towards them in some way. It usually occurs over time. Seeds get planted. Good seeds, bad seeds. Some take root, some don’t. Some take root in more fertile ground than others…

If you’re ultimately asking: “What is truth?” God and God’s Word is Truth. If you respond: “But people see that differently!” Hmm. I think that if you make the effort, with good will towards it all, to find the truth in the Bible you can find it. You’ll find that 99% of people who ‘see it differently’ have never really made the effort to see it to begin with, or have been more interested in bringing it down to their level rather than meeting it at its level. The Holy Spirit plays a role in illuminating and guiding one in discerning the truth as well…

A regenerate Chrisitan both wants to know the truth and is ABLE to know the truth. The main mark of a regenerate Christian is a desire to engage the Word of God and find the truth in it. It is there and can be found. (Note: not all self-identified Christians are regenerate. In the visible church, that is… So, it’s not really redundant to say regenerate Christian, or born again Christian. The person who said it is redundant is right, in a real way, but the fact is the visible church is made up of both regenerate and unregenerate self-identified Christians…)

Comment #18312

Posted by Mike on February 27, 2005 8:55 AM (e)

David heddle said: To those whose panties got all bunched up by the use of “America” as a synonym of the United States: get over it. That objection doesn’t even rise to the level of “pc”. That is just tilting at windmills. Around the world people use them interchangeably, even if only to chant “Death to America”. Or do you suppose they intend to include “Death to Chileans” and “Death to Canadians (the Maple leaf State)” as part of their movement?

You see David, I agree with your point (if not with your condescending tone), however you fail to see my point, which is that if Steve is going to make a claim about America being the “kingdom of heaven” he needs to be aware that America refers to two entire continents, and NOT only to the USA. So, the claim which refers to the good ole USA, is based on faulty reasoning. This is not about some foolish attempt to be politically correct, although to get it through Steve’s incredibly thick skull, I used a personal experience with real Americans living in Chile to illustrate my point.

This is probably more than enough diversion from the topic of evolution, and for that I apologize to the readers of this thread.

Comment #18313

Posted by God on February 27, 2005 9:12 AM (e)

Evolutionists argue (rightly so) that Darwin’s work should be evaluated independently of his personal views. They do not, however, readily extend that courtesy.

“They”? You think there’s some monolithic view amongst “evolutionists” (read: people that understand mainstream biology and think it’s reasonably sound) have about who’s a racist and who’s not?

Who’s arguing from flashcards now?

Comment #18314

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 9:35 AM (e)

If you’re ultimately asking: “What is truth?” God and God’s Word is Truth.

————————

Then what do we need YOU for.

Or are you under the assumption that You and God, and Your Word and God’s Word, are all one and the same.

Comment #18315

Posted by Frank Schmidt on February 27, 2005 9:40 AM (e)

Way back when, I took a Spanish short course, the better way to find the bathroom in America outside the USA. Our instructor told us that one way to refer to US citizens is as “Usanos” - those from the USA. He also told us that the word was a form of the verb meaning “to use or exploit” something or someone. Intesting take on our cultural chauvinism….

Comment #18316

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 9:43 AM (e)

Lenny, I’ve debated Unitarians than are less thick than you.

Comment #18318

Posted by RPM on February 27, 2005 10:04 AM (e)

I thought this thread had reached its crux yesterday (pun intended). I checked back this morning, and, to my suprise, the banter had continued.

I just want to let Steve know that I am part of the intellectual conspiracy to rid the world of Christian thought and replace it with Satan worshiping, hedonistic atheism (us atheists, agnositics, and anti-theists absolutely love Satan). Now that I have come clean, can Steve please leave and allow the evil scientist elites to discuss our consipiracy in private?

Hopefully that dripped of enough sarcasm for Steve to pick up.

Comment #18320

Posted by Russell on February 27, 2005 10:06 AM (e)

David heddle said:

To those whose panties got all bunched up by the use of “America” as a synonym of the United States: get over it. That objection doesn’t even rise to the level of “pc”.

And, of course, it would be pretty silly to get too worked up about that detail. But why does David pass over in silence the larger point? “Steve”, in his somewhat over-the-top parody, is poking fun at the conflation of nationalism and religion so prominent in American - excuse me, U.S. - right-wing politics these days.

Comment #18324

Posted by Mike Walker on February 27, 2005 10:35 AM (e)

David,

It must be wearing on the soul to be always defending people like Steve by criticising every little logical flaw you accuse his “attackers” of making, while passing silently over the whoppers Steve slings in every direction.

I guess we should be flattered by how much of a higher standard you hold us to over your fellow creationists (oops, sorry, IDists).

Regarding the “America” issue - go back and read Steve’s original post - the idiocy about America being the Kingdom of God on Earth based on the origin of the name. He has every right to believe it but we have a right to criticise the nonsense he uses as evidence for his position. If the name America was originally conceived for the whole continent (which it obviously was based on available evidence and common sense), what sense does his argument based on that name make? None.

If you want to continue defending people like Steve that is your choice, but I should imagine that your time and efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

Comment #18327

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 10:49 AM (e)

>If the name America was originally conceived for the whole continent (which it obviously was based on available evidence and common sense), what sense does his argument based on that name make? None.

This subject shows up the common shallowness of atheists’ background with higher influences in the areas of literature and art and etc. that have to do with how things get shepherded into time, over time. Epic poetry, schools of art or music, etc.; architectual styles. Names like America don’t get chosen in the way you are saying they do. They just kind of appear, and then people go back and trace their origin, if they can. The fact that America is applied generally to all of North and South America has to do with N. and S. America being the (representing collectively the) New World. The fact that America then became applied particularly, by Amercians themselves, and by the world, over time, to the United States has meaning. Your shallow understanding of these matters, and your juvenile resentments at the exceptional history and standing of the United States in the world notwithstanding…

Comment #18328

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 10:53 AM (e)

>If the name America was originally conceived for the whole continent (which it obviously was based on available evidence and common sense), what sense does his argument based on that name make? None.

This subject shows up the common shallowness of atheists’ background with higher influences in the areas of literature and art and etc. that have to do with how things get shepherded into time, over time. Epic poetry, schools of art or music, etc.; architectual styles. Names like America don’t get chosen in the way you are saying they do. They just kind of appear, and then people go back and trace their origin, if they can. The fact that America is applied generally to all of North and South America has to do with N. and S. America being the (representing collectively the) New World. The fact that America then became applied particularly, by Amercians themselves, and by the world, over time, to the United States has meaning. Your shallow understanding of these matters, and your juvenile resentments at the exceptional history and standing of the United States in the world notwithstanding…

Comment #18331

Posted by Mike Walker on February 27, 2005 11:05 AM (e)

Your shallow understanding of these matters, and your juvenile resentments at the exceptional history and standing of the United States in the world notwithstanding …

Case in point, Dave. :-)

Comment #18332

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 11:15 AM (e)

Mike Walker’s ‘educated suspicion’ that I’m pro-American has been validated. The 3,694 posts from me above on this subject were not needed to suss this conclusion…

Comment #18336

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 11:37 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18338

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 27, 2005 11:41 AM (e)

Lenny, I’ve debated Unitarians than are less thick than you.

oh that’s good. avoid the question a hundred ways, then finally end it with an undeniable (and useless) “ad hominem” attack.

can you answer the question or not?

Comment #18341

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 12:13 PM (e)

How did this thread devolve into theology 101?

Comment #18342

Posted by Greenman on February 27, 2005 12:20 PM (e)

“E” wrote: “People like “Steve” are the reason why people like me don’t go to church anymore.” I don’t go to church because Deuteronomy 23:2 says “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation…” Unfortunately my dad was a bastard child so it looks like my descendants (at least eight or so more generations of them) and I are just out luck. Seriously though, I’d like to ask the Biblical literalists here a question, but first let me set the question up (and this question is so elemental that I’m surprised I don’t see it more often in forums like these). Biblical literalists insist on disbelieving mountains of empirical data supporting evolution. Your assertion is that, based on a literal belief in scripture, God created all life a few thousand years ago. You believe that life could not have spontaneously developed but had to have some supernatural spark. Assume for the sake of argument that this is true. Assume that God had to have created life. (Finally here’s the question). Then who or what created God? Your answer to evolution is not an answer at all, just a postponement. Saying “God did it!” is not an answer to anything. If we all adhered to that way of thinking then we could all throw our hands up and go home. There is no point in any further scientific inquiry. Hell, let’s just sit back and drink margaritas until the Good Lord comes and takes us home! If you can sense my disdain for literalist beliefs, then…you should, because I am laying it on pretty thick. I don’t know if there is a god(s) or not but if there is I’d bet he hasn’t made himself and the truth knowable only to Steve and those like him. Their hubris is unbearable. Who said, “The human capacity for self-deception is limitless…?”

Comment #18343

Posted by Mike Walker on February 27, 2005 12:21 PM (e)

oh that’s good. avoid the question a hundred ways, then finally end it with an undeniable (and useless) “ad hominem” attack.

can you answer the question or not?

Joe, Lenny,

You have to remember you are trying to debate someone who believes that the universe is 6000 years old, that the sun and moon stood still in the sky for a whole day, that the world was populated by people who committed incest, and that we (everybody except literal creationists) are destined for an eternity of hellfire and damnation - especially those hateful liberal Christians.

Keep trying if you want, but remember to keep your expectations low.

Comment #18345

Posted by Ben on February 27, 2005 12:32 PM (e)

the exceptional history and standing of the United States in the world notwithstanding …

You’re joking, right?

The USA held onto slavery long after other countries had outlawed it, that it had massive segregation as late as the 1950s (both policies based on what their supporters took from the bible, btw), and that under the current administration, it’s deftly skirting international law in order to hold people for years without trial in Guantanamo Bay, it’s globally more unpopular with Bush in charge than it’s ever been before, and that the current fundamentalist far right Christian beliefs of a large section of the population and government make it look like a laughing stock when they try to outlaw things like evolution.

Dunno about you, but I personally really wouldn’t be too quick to brag about the USA’s “exceptional history and standing”, especially if I was a fundamentalist Christian.

Comment #18346

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 12:33 PM (e)

And, the whole of human and non-human suffering is due to disobeying God’s command to not partake of a forbidden fruit. And to think some of us find the “three strikes your out” laws to be harsh.

Comment #18347

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 12:34 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18348

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 12:38 PM (e)

How did this thread devolve into theology 101?

——————————–

Because that is all creationism/ID *is*.

They don’t know any science, and don’t CARE about any science. What they want – ALL they want – is to get their religious opinions into other people’s heads. Whether those other people like it or not.

Arguing “science” with them is a waste of time. The “debate” is not OVER “science”. Creationist/IDers are not trying to improve science, or better answer scientific questions. Indeed, they don’t even care about RELIGION or better answering RELIGIOUS questions.

What they want is politicla control, pure and simple. They are nothing but ayatollah-wanna-be’s —- they want a theocracy, with themselves as “theo”.

Comment #18362

Posted by Don T. Know on February 27, 2005 1:43 PM (e)

Posted by David Heddle on February 27, 2005 06:41 AM
It would be hard to argue that Luther was not anti-Semitic. It would be just as hard to argue that the Catholic Church was not anti-Semitic from the time of Ambrose (late 4th century) until the modern era.

Sounds like Martin Luther wasn’t so revolutionary after all. So much for clean breaks, eh? Protestantism sounds more evolutionary than an example of punctuated Christianity. Hey, didn’t some already make that point?

Comment #18366

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 2:36 PM (e)

The atheists are stunned they’re in the presence of an individual who doesn’t conform to the strictures their intellectual commissars and thought and speech enforcers have demanded they conform to all their lives…

Come out of the Kingdom of Satan, evolutionists. Read the Word of God. Wait on the Lord.

Comment #18372

Posted by steve on February 27, 2005 3:39 PM (e)

Comment #18346

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 12:33 PM

And, the whole of human and non-human suffering is due to disobeying God’s command to not partake of a forbidden fruit. And to think some of us find the “three strikes your out” laws to be harsh.

Even if i were religious, i wouldn’t be christian, because their god is a psychopath.

Comment #18373

Posted by steve on February 27, 2005 3:44 PM (e)

Comment #18346

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 12:33 PM

And, the whole of human and non-human suffering is due to disobeying God’s command to not partake of a forbidden fruit. And to think some of us find the “three strikes your out” laws to be harsh.

Even if i were religious, i wouldn’t be christian, because their god is a psychopath.

Comment #18374

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 3:51 PM (e)

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 02:36 PM

The atheists are stunned they’re in the presence of an individual who doesn’t conform to the strictures their intellectual commissars and thought and speech enforcers have demanded they conform to all their lives …

Come out of the Kingdom of Satan, evolutionists. Read the Word of God. Wait on the Lord.

Well, there you have it. No arguments about the scientific validity of creationism, ID, or evolution; just “Repent and be saved.”

Sorry, but you’ve got science all wrong.

Unlike evangelical Christians, very few atheists go to weekly meetings where authority figures tell them what to believe; but then, not many natural scientists are full-blown atheists.

When scientists (atheist or otherwise) get together, they are always challenging whatever is put forward to them. That’s the way the game works. If one set of ideas is dominant, it’s because they keep winning according to the rules of scientific debate. No intellectual commisars, no thought enforcers except the community’s insistence on observation and verifiable hypotheses.

Actually, reading the Word of God doesn’t help much. If you start at the beginning and read with even a moderately skeptical eye, you keep running into all sorts of stuff that damages its credibility.

Go ahead and wait on the Lord to your science for you.

Comment #18375

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 3:54 PM (e)

Gack! Am I embarrassed!

A thousand pardons for being to lazy to pick up on irony!

Comment #18379

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 27, 2005 4:04 PM (e)

i’m aware its a (mostly) lost cause. the fact that this “Steve” can’t answer one simple question (and won’t even acknowledge that he can’t) astounds me in ways i’d rather not consider.

reading his “post-modern” stuff i get reminded (semi-obscure reference coming up) of an episode, Timeslides of the british sci-fi sitcom, Red Dwarf. In it, Lister meets a much younger version of himself who’s obsessed with calling every product of society and statement of the government “crypto-fascist”. When this simple and obvious fact was pointed out to the younger him, replies “that’s just the sort of thing you crypto-fascists would say, isn’t it?”

Comment #18383

Posted by The Messenger on February 27, 2005 4:14 PM (e)

Dear human who calls yourself, God, It is like this:

made -:caused to exist, occurred, or appeared

Example - Last night we had two bowls of cookie dough. We MADE 3 dozen cookies and still had one bowl of cookie dough left.

evolve - to develop gradually or to cause someone or something to develop gradually

Example - The tiny cookie company did EVOLVE over the years into a multi-million dollar organization. Alas, the tiny cookie company no longer exist.

I am not attempting to give you a science lesson. This is a very simple and basic vocabulary lesson. I realize that we might use all the cookie dough, but it is obvious that a person who makes something often has left over material. The use of the word evolve does not automatically imply excess. A more logical question for the creationist would be, however, why could the intermediate stages not survive?

Comment #18384

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 4:17 PM (e)

posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 12:33 PM

And, the whole of human and non-human suffering is due to disobeying God’s command to not partake of a forbidden fruit. And to think some of us find the “three strikes your out” laws to be harsh.

This is a common misconception. The forbidden fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a side issue.

Hear the Word of God:

“God said, ‘The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out his hand and takes fruit from the Tree of Life also, eats it and lives forever?’ So the Lord God drove him out of of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. He cast him out, and to the east of the garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the Tree of Life.” Genesis 3:22-24

In short, God was afraid that man would gain immortality, so He banished him from the Garden. Eating the Forbidden Fruit was just a bad sign that Adam and Even couldn’t be trusted to follow orders.

So it was really strike two that God was worried about.

Strange what you find in the Bible when you don’t read it with Eyes of Faith.

(On the Bathroom Wall we could debate whether Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall.)

Comment #18385

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 4:34 PM (e)

>i’m aware its a (mostly) lost cause. the fact that this “Steve” can’t answer one simple question (and won’t even acknowledge that he can’t) astounds me in ways i’d rather not consider.

Comment #18243

I can answer it. I can’t understand the answer for you.

Comment #18386

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 4:42 PM (e)

To the evolutionists who continually mistake ‘science’ for ‘evolutionism’ allow God to speak to this matter:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Kings, atheists. Heirs of the Living God of Creation.

Not fools.

Comment #18387

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 27, 2005 4:48 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18389

Posted by Ben on February 27, 2005 5:01 PM (e)

I *am* stunned that I’m in the presence of someone who seriously thinks he speaks on behalf of God …. .

And it’s funny how God’s politics always seem to be the politics of whoever is claiming to speak for him.

Comment #18391

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 5:07 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Well, it can work both ways:

Proverbs 14:7 “Avoid a stupid man, you will hear not a word of sense from him. A clever man has the wit to find the right way; the folly of stupid men misleads them.”

Proverbs 14:15 “A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof.”

LOL!

Comment #18392

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 5:08 PM (e)

“There are, then, no such persons as real atheists — least of all amongst those God-ignoring unbelieving scientists who meet the God of law and order at every turn in their research. There are, however, many practical atheists. For there are many fools here on earth and in the world of science. Such are they who say in their hearts: “There is no God!” But such only violate their consciences by suppressing or holding
down the truth in their unrighteousness.”

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/kuyper/kuyper.pdf

Comment #18396

Posted by Russell on February 27, 2005 5:52 PM (e)

Human who calls himself The Messenger wrote:

The use of the word evolve does not automatically imply excess.

I think I’ve pinpointed the source of your misunderstanding. The word “Evolve” - at least in a biological sense, and that’s what we’re talking about, right? - pretty much DOES imply excess. Think about it.

I’m descended from - you might say “evolved” from - humans that inhabit another continent. Will it surprise you to learn that there are STILL humans that live on that continent? There was enough “excess” replication to populate more than one continent.

You see, whether “evolve” necessarily involves excess is kind of head-scratchingly beside the point. The point is that obviously it often does.

Just out of curiosity, what was your closest brush with biological science, The Messenger?

Comment #18397

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 5:54 PM (e)

Here’s the whole chapter in KJV. I know, the NAS is a better translation but what the hell.

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Strange what you find in the Bible when you only read it selectively (is that what “with Eyes of Faith” means? I know that’s what it usually means for evangelical/fundamentalist types).

Comment #18398

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

I guess what the above demonstrates is the difficulty that Christians, or at least Air Bear, have in following causal chains, even if they are metaphorical. I’m not surprised at all.

Comment #18399

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 6:02 PM (e)

I guess what the above demonstrates is the difficulty that Christians, or at least Air Bear, have in following causal chains, even if they are metaphorical. I’m not surprised at all.

Comment #18401

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 27, 2005 6:11 PM (e)

“Steve” said:

It would be hard to argue that Darwin was not a racist. Evolutionists argue (rightly so) that Darwin’s work should be evaluated independently of his personal views. They do not, however, readily extend that courtesy.

It would be a bold and bald-faced lie to claim Darwin was racist – and now we see your true colors.

If you have an ounce of Christian faith in you, I’d urge you to study the issue and repent now.

Among the more famous stories of Darwin is the violent argument he had with the good creationist Capt. Robert FitzRoy aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. Darwin had complained about slavery and the inherent racism involved in enslavement of Africans. Capt. FitzRoy defended slavery with appeal to the Bible. Eventually FitzRoy apologized to Darwin to make peace aboard the ship – but there is no record he ever left his racist views.

Darwin continued his dislike of racism and slavery, and his writings clearly demonstrate that. The Wedgewood family fortune, which Darwin benefited from, was used as a key tool to end slavery in the British Empire, with Charles Darwin’s active participation.

You should pick your arguments more carefully, and be certain you have evidence to back them. Darwin’s work stands on its own, wholly independent of his views.

But Darwin was anti-racist both in his work and his personal views.

Your celebration of ignorance here is most appalling. Do you think scripture encourages ignorance, and disdains knowledge and accuracy?

Comment #18403

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 6:16 PM (e)

God made a covenant with Adam. Theologians call it the Covenant of Works. It’s part of the overriding Covenant of Redemption. That Adam fell as a result of breaking the covenant of works very much did have to do with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (The Tree of Life was not denied to Adam totally, just under different conditions in his now fallen condition.) The reason for the fall is one of the mysteries contained in the Covenant of Redemption, but that God allowed Adam to fall (and all humanity in Adam, Adam being the federal head of humanity) can be seen as part of God’s Plan in creating man and allowing man to develop ‘back up’ in a real way rather than just being created perfect and being merely a created ‘thing’. The Covenant of Grace was made with Adam immediately after Adam left the Garden (the reconciling covenant of the Covenant of Redemption) and gave man the mechanics and architecture to connect with God and develop and return. Jesus comes in here in the covenant of grace. Calvinists get called gnostics by fundamentalists for this Covenant Theology. Calvinists also get called fundamentalists by atheists. All the name-calling aside, one thing Calvinists and fundamentalists both know is the Bible, despite the juvenile myths atheists labor under…

Comment #18404

Posted by Russell on February 27, 2005 6:20 PM (e)

Ed Darrell: The quote you ascribe to “Steve” is actually David Heddle’s. Not that that changes anything.

Comment #18405

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 6:22 PM (e)

Ed Darrel, the quote you ascribe to me was written by David Heddle - Comment #18304. Towel yourself off, put the chains and fire down, and maybe go for a meditative walk or something…

And, for the record, I don’t know if Darwin was a racist, by modern day standards, or 19th century standards, or any standards, yet somehow I doubt I’d trust your proclamations on the matter…

Comment #18406

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 27, 2005 6:27 PM (e)

Come out of the Kingdom of Satan, evolutionists. Read the Word of God. Wait on the Lord.

Some of us not only read the Word of God, Steve, we’ve been ordained to stop the spread of darkness. Knowledge and science are not “the kingdom of Satan,” nor even a stop on the road there.

Your views are not necessarily Christian, and they certainly do not represent the Christian views of science or knowledge. The Bible tells us to seek, and we will find; knock, and doors will be opened. You come here telling others to stop seeking and give up knocking.

When the words of another are so constantly at odds with scripture, as yours are, what’s a faithful person to conclude?

That stuff AirBear pulled out of Proverbs? Read it and learn. Please.

Comment #18407

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 27, 2005 6:38 PM (e)

Steve said:

Ed Darrel, the quote you ascribe to me was written by David Heddle - Comment #18304. Towel yourself off, put the chains and fire down, and maybe go for a meditative walk or something …

And, for the record, I don’t know if Darwin was a racist, by modern day standards, or 19th century standards, or any standards, yet somehow I doubt I’d trust your proclamations on the matter …

My apologies to you both.

Don’t take my word for anything – study the stuff for yourself.

Alas, such imprecations haven’t worked with you yet. And the issue seems to be that you think yourself the authority in everything, while you can manifest such authority in nothing. Don’t trust my proclamations – but yours are even less trustworthy! What will you do about that?

Comment #18408

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 6:39 PM (e)

>Knowledge and science are not “the kingdom of Satan,”

No, they aren’t; but the ‘theory of evolution’ certainly is of the darkness and vanity and illusion and impenitence that is of the spirit of the Kingdom of Satan.

Comment #18409

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

Buridan wrote:

I guess what the above demonstrates is the difficulty that Christians, or at least Air Bear, have in following causal chains, even if they are metaphorical. I’m not surprised at all.

Well, OK. I wasn’t making the distinction between “You shall gain your bread by the sweat of your brow” vs. being driven out of the Garden of Eden. I guess Adam and Eve could have stayed in the Garden and still had to sweat. Most popular religious teaching doesn’t make this distinction, but I guess it’s there, as Steve so eloquently demonstrates.

Steve, still writing, wrote:

… that God allowed Adam to fall … can be seen as part of God’s Plan in creating man and allowing man to develop ‘back up’ in a real way rather than just being created perfect and being merely a created ‘thing’.

Your Calvinist theologians are just making this up.

This kind of rationalization is just an attempt to salvage some positive meaning out of the rather crude slapstick Adam and Eve story. It also implies that the original creation in God’s image was not such a great idea.*

We can see here the difference between religious thought and scientific thought. The above passage is a “maybe it could be” speculation, as opposed to the strictures of scientific evidence based on observation. Not that there’s anything WRONG with religious thought, but Steve et al don’t realize that scientific thought is, well, different.

*How about an alternative speculation - that God didn’t bother with the original “in His image” creation, and just allowed man to develop ‘up’ in a real way from a pre-human ancestor. Interesting.

Comment #18413

Posted by NelC on February 27, 2005 7:51 PM (e)

Steve, is it vanity to decide on the evidence that God shows us in His works that man is descended from apes? Or is it vanity to declare that you are saved and the rest of us are to be written out of the book of life because we don’t believe exactly what you believe?

Is it illusion to look on God’s creation and attempt to puzzle out His intent from what He shows us? Or is it illusion to shut one’s eyes and listen only to one’s own voice repeating endlessly, “It isn’t true, it isn’t true!”

Is it darkness to look on the beauty of God’s universe, from the swirling nebulae to the dance of molecules, and attempt to describe it? Or is the darkness in those who hide from His awesome creation and seek to blind those who will not turn away?

Is it penitent to declare that you alone know His word, and that on your word alone we will be cast down? Is it penitent to refuse God’s gift of reason? Is it penitent to lie and obfuscate in the name of His Truth? Are you penitent, or are you proud?

Comment #18417

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

Air Bear wrote:

“We can see here the difference between religious thought and scientific thought. The above passage is a “maybe it could be” speculation, as opposed to the strictures of scientific evidence based on observation. Not that there’s anything WRONG with religious thought, but Steve et al don’t realize that scientific thought is, well, different.

Yes, that’s exactly the point! And much of this nonsense would be avoided if more people could simply grasp this important point.

Thank you Air Bear.

Comment #18418

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 8:45 PM (e)

>Your Calvinist theologians are just making this up.

OK, I’ll let Owen, Witsius, Edwards, et al. know. I’ll also pass a note on to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…

Comment #18419

Posted by Steve on February 27, 2005 8:53 PM (e)

>Steve, is it vanity to decide on the evidence that God shows us in His works that man is descended from apes? Or is it vanity to declare that you are saved and the rest of us are to be written out of the book of life because we don’t believe exactly what you believe?

Your notion of humility is false humility. “Look at me, I abase myself by declaring myself the descendent of apes…”

No, your vanity refuses to recognize anything higher than you (or higher than man in general). What created you is higher than you. Apes or the notion of being descended from apes, or any other animal, is not something vanity has any problem with. Apes aren’t higher than you. The idea of being descended from apes is not a threat to vanity and worldly pride. God, your Creator, is a threat to your vanity and worldly pride, hence you will recognize anything, any idea, any false idol, but you won’t recognize your Creator…

Comment #18422

Posted by Air Bear on February 27, 2005 9:34 PM (e)

Buridan wrote:

Yes, that’s exactly the point! And much of this nonsense would be avoided if more people could simply grasp this important point.

And a few days ago David Heddle agreed to much the same thing – that ID is a source of philosophical inspiration, but it does not actually enter into his scientific work.

Apples and oranges.

the tireless Steve wrote:

OK, I’ll let Owen, Witsius, Edwards, et al. know. I’ll also pass a note on to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost …

You needn’t bother informing the Trinity, since they’re Omniscient, and knew from Eternity what I was going go write. But if you want to tattle on me during your nightly prayers, be my guest.

Comment #18430

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 27, 2005 10:24 PM (e)

>Knowledge and science are not “the kingdom of Satan,”

To which Steve responded:

No, they aren’t; but the ‘theory of evolution’ certainly is of the darkness and vanity and illusion and impenitence that is of the spirit of the Kingdom of Satan.

Well, it’s no one associated with the theory of evolution who came up with the funny, absurdly tragic question, “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys?” If ignorance is equivalent to darkness – it is, by the way – it’s not evolution that is of the evil spirit you claim.

Evolution theory, applied, keeps diabetics alive. It cures some cancers and treats others. It prevents malaria, and treats malaria victims. It feeds billions.

You call that evil? So did the Pharisees, but only when it was done on the Sabbath. Your defense is you’re seven times more rule-bound than they?

If humans evolved from creationists …

Comment #18433

Posted by ~DS~ on February 27, 2005 10:50 PM (e)

And it’s funny how God’s politics always seem to be the politics of whoever is claiming to speak for him.

What a coinkidink eh Ben? Why the slave owners of the old south were certain God approved of slavery, oddly the abolitionists up north read the exact same book and were utterly certain it mandated that slavery was a sin. It’s almost like, oh I dunno, it’s almost like they’re justifying their politics by arrogantly claiming the Lord of the Universe to speak for him and choose his polotics. Why it’s almost like the religous right read the NT, totally missed the 2000 verses where Jesus mandates taking care of the poor and sick and shunning material possesions, but didn’t miss that verse or two condemning homosexuals elsewhere in the book. What an amazing coinkidink huh?

Comment #18435

Posted by Buridan on February 27, 2005 11:37 PM (e)

Agreement with David Heddle! I may have to retract my statement ;-)

I’m not a positivist, so I guess I’m stuck with the distinction.

Comment #18437

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 12:36 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being?

They claim humans came out of Africa so I don’t see what choice they have. When a naked ape wanders out of a hot climate to a severely cold climate one might assume that natural selection would play some role in conserving certain beneficial mutations.

Let’s ask the mutation/selection boys what those beneficial mutations might be!

Speak right up, fellas. Don’t be shy. Did God create everyone equal or did natural selection select some for different qualities than others?

Comment #18438

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 12:49 AM (e)

Ed Darrel, with an as yet undetermined appendage wrote:

Evolution theory, applied, keeps diabetics alive.

Insulin isn’t even spelled close to the same as evolution, Ed. Care to regale us with the logic behind that bit of absurdity?

Perhaps you’re one of those “power of positive thinking” guys who holds that if you believe in something hard enough it comes true. So because Darwinists believed hard enough that dogs and humans have a close common ancestor that made them anatomically similar enough that they both respond the same way to insulin. And absent that belief, insulin would be unique to human beings.

Yeah, that must be it. Or something equally absurd.

Comment #18439

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 12:52 AM (e)

Ed Darrel, with an as yet undetermined appendage wrote:

Evolution theory, applied, keeps diabetics alive.

Insulin isn’t even spelled close to the same as evolution, Ed. Care to regale us with the logic behind that bit of absurdity?

Perhaps you’re one of those “power of positive thinking” guys who holds that if you believe in something hard enough it comes true. So because Darwinists believed hard enough that dogs and humans have a common ancestor that belief actually made them anatomically similar enough that they both respond the same way to insulin. And absent that belief, insulin would be unique to human beings.

Yeah, that must be it. Or something equally absurd. I can hardly wait to hear it.

Comment #18440

Posted by Mike Walker on February 28, 2005 12:59 AM (e)

Speak right up, fellas. Don’t be shy. Did God create everyone equal or did natural selection select some for different qualities than others?

Your question is pointless and disingenuous. I might just as well ask you if God created everyone equal then why do some have exceptional talents (music, athletics, etc) and others none? Why are some born healthy and others without a brain, or with any number of hideous and cruel genetic deformities?

Does *that* make any of them less human, less equal? No, of course not. So why should evolutionists believe that a mutation for skin colour make a difference to one’s standing in the human race?

Comment #18441

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 1:01 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

What created you is higher than you.

I dunno, Steve. What makes you think that?

Genesis

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Sounds pretty clear to me. I mean, a lot of the bible is ambiguous but this part about “in our image” and “after our likeness” is pretty darn specific. Which part of it don’t you understand?

Comment #18442

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 28, 2005 1:04 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being?

DaveScot responded:

They claim humans came out of Africa so I don’t see what choice they have. When a naked ape wanders out of a hot climate to a severely cold climate one might assume that natural selection would play some role in conserving certain beneficial mutations.

Let’s ask the mutation/selection boys what those beneficial mutations might be!

Speak right up, fellas. Don’t be shy. Did God create everyone equal or did natural selection select some for different qualities than others?

Humans are all one species, one race. There are not “intermediates” within a species. As to the other intermediates, there are no fewer than 16 species known between modern humans and our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. (If anything, Africans would be the later models of humans – those farthest from Africa having been descended from earlier models, while those in Africa kept evolving – but don’t let the real mechanics of the process get in the way of your smashing display of ignorance of evolution.)

Almost all the allegations that African humans are intermediates that I’ve tracked back came from preachers, most of whom were defending slavery. Science, and especially Darwin, did not make the claim, nor defend it. Interestingly, these arguments were made for at least 50 years prior to the birth of Darwin, pointing out that racism in religiously-bent folk has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or any branch of science.

Speak right up, boys: Why do creationists make these now-obscene charges, and why do you keep bringing them up and falsely blaming them on evolution?

Did God create everyone equal? That’s a legal principle, not a biological one. According to our Declaration of Independence, we are created equal regardless of who or what our creator is. Of course, that being a legal principle, it depends on our secular sytems to protect it.

Even people with differing qualities due to genetic differences are created equal before the law. Blue eyes or brown, we all have the right to worship as we see fit. Red hair or blonde, we all have the right to be stupid.

Some people abuse the latter right.

Comment #18447

Posted by John A. Davison on February 28, 2005 6:28 AM (e)

The 16 or so intermediates that separate us from chimps, can all be explained by approximately that same number of chromosome rearrangements that separate us from chimps. In other words, there was no need whatsoever for mutation or Natural Selection to have played any role in that evolutionary separation. The information may well have all been present all along as suggested by the Preformed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

John A. Davison

Comment #18450

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 6:50 AM (e)

>Sounds pretty clear to me. I mean, a lot of the bible is ambiguous but this part about “in our image” and “after our likeness” is pretty darn specific. Which part of it don’t you understand?

Said the clay to the potter.

Comment #18461

Posted by Paul on February 28, 2005 10:07 AM (e)

I object to the very idea that Christian thought is moral. It seems to be Protestantism in particular teaches that no matter what you do, no matter what action you take, it is only your belief in a supernatural being that determines ultimately whether you will be deemed worth of everlasting paradise. This is a HIGHLY immoral view of the world. IMHO, a moral person is determined by his actions, not his beliefs. And making ammends to God is NOT sufficient to dismiss all sin. And yet largely this is what the Protestants teach. If you just let Jesus in your heart, nothing you’ve done in the past matters. Explain please how this is a moral view. Nature is ammoral. Evolution does not teach anything about what is right and wrong.

It becomes a dice game where Christians must hope against sudden death. Seems like there will be ALOT of mass murderers in heaven, since what death row inmate will not have time to ask Jesus into his heart?

Comment #18464

Posted by GCT on February 28, 2005 10:25 AM (e)

A poem, for Steve:

Steve is right
Atheism = Satanism
The evolutionists are
At the gates!
No, don’t let them in!

Leave here! Cry to them
Only I can enter heaven
Verily, you will all burn
Evolutionists deserve no less
So sayeth I

Steve, you’ve done your job
Their deaf ears will not hear
Evolutionists must go to hell
Vast numbers of them will burn
Everyone, but you

Comment #18466

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 28, 2005 10:32 AM (e)

I’m just a poor country lawyer, Mr. Davison, and I am in no way a genetics expert.

But it appears to me you’re saying that at any moment a chimpanzee could give birth to Homo erectus – is that what you’re saying?

It also appears you’re claiming that no mutation is necessary to increase brain size, nor to swell the frontal lobes in humans.

Plus, you seem to completely dismiss the fact that chimpanzees actually have a different number of chromosomes than humans. And how do you account for the position of the larynx and voice box in humans, compared with the other great apes?

Are you saying humans are descended from chimpanzees?

Comment #18467

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 28, 2005 10:33 AM (e)

i’d watch lumping all “protestants” together like that. the more evangelical churches have far different dogmas on matters like this from the churches that are closer to the catholic church. episcopalians, lutherans, and the northern american methodist church don’t have such simple expressions of thought as part of their dogma.

on the other hand, episcopalians and others do see the rediculous dependency on ceremony in the catholics – just go to confession, mass at least twice a year, and say your hail mary’s, and all is forgiven. it all amounts attempts to lead a guilt-free life before the guilt prevents you from living at all, in one sense.

there’s a deeper truth in the wonderous *process* of reconciliation, but shallow attempts to get it over with by simple faith or simple ceremony miss the truth entirely.

on the other hand, God’s always said it is not for us to define *His* justice, in spite of the fact that *every* christian sect has done that and continues to do so. including “Steve”, who seems to be placing his views as a religion unto itself.

but that’s definitely heavy irrelevance to evolutionary discussions, no?

Comment #18470

Posted by Don T. Know on February 28, 2005 10:40 AM (e)

I love how religionists talk matter-of-factly about invisible beings and forces without realizing how insane they sound. I have a certain (but limited) amount of sympathy/tolerance for them as I was once a fundamentalist myself (parroting the same nonsense). But, when they continue to make bald ASSertions and expect us to ASSume the truth of those ASSertions, they are asking for too much.

Sure, if you ASSume the Bible is actually the word of a Supreme Being, you can make all sorts of claims on behalf of that God. But, ASSuming the Bible to be the word of a Supreme God is an article of faith. Some would argue that its constradictions and some of its sub-human stories are sufficient to dispel any notion of the book being authored by a competent and good Being.

Comment #18471

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 10:41 AM (e)

>I object to the very idea that Christian thought is moral. It seems to be Protestantism in particular teaches that no matter what you do, no matter what action you take, it is only your belief in a supernatural being that determines ultimately whether you will be deemed worth of everlasting paradise. This is a HIGHLY immoral view of the world. IMHO, a moral person is determined by his actions, not his beliefs.

Christianity is not about being good but about making contact. All human beings sin. Merely being ‘good’ (however you define good) will merely make you a ‘good’ person imprisoned in the Kingdom of Death.

Your problem is not being ‘good’; it’s being saved from the Kingdom of Satan and from death.

>And making ammends to God is NOT sufficient to dismiss all sin. And yet largely this is what the Protestants teach.

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross IS sufficient to wash one clean and make one able to approach the presence of God. You don’t ‘make ammends’ to God, you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour (and High Priest, i.e. Mediator between you and God). Your relationship has to be with Jesus because Jesus is your Prophet, your Priest, and your King. It is Jesus that Mediates and reconciles you to God.

>If you just let Jesus in your heart, nothing you’ve done in the past matters. Explain please how this is a moral view.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you insist on seeing ‘others’ as being ‘bad people’ and, implicitly, seeing yourself as a ‘better person’ you are missing the grave truth of your situation. There is only one unforgiveable sin, and it isn’t murder or anything else that human crime has chronicled throughout history. It’s rejection of the Holy Spirit, and this unforgiveable sin can only be committed by a person who is least likely to commit it, i.e. a regenerated Christian. It’s the unforgiveable sin because if you reject the Holy Spirit which Jesus sends to you you then have no other hope. As Jesus said, you can insult Him, but woe to you if you insult the Holy Spirit. This simply means, once the sacrifice is made and the Spirit is given to you, if you then reject that Spirit you just simply have nothing left that can save you. So, the point is, you are as much a sinner (or as much condemned to death) as anybody you consider to be
worse than you (the mass murderer or whatever).

>Nature is ammoral. Evolution does not teach anything about what is right and wrong. It becomes a dice game where Christians must hope against sudden death. Seems like there will be ALOT of mass murderers in heaven, since what death row inmate will not have time to ask Jesus into his heart?

If regeneration is real then it’s real. That mass murderer you say will be in heaven will be a ‘new man’. But the important point for you to see is you now are as condemned by God as the mass murderer is. There are two Kingdoms: the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God. You are now in the Kingdom of Satan. You can deny it or say your don’t buy that or whatever all you want, but the fact is you are here in your decaying flesh body in a world filled with darkness and violence. There is only one way for you to enter the Kingdom of God and that is regeneration. God regenerates souls, you can’t ‘do’ it, but He also states that when you move towards Him He moves towards you. And one way you move towards Him is to read His Word. This puts you in the ‘environment’ where regeneration can be effected because regeneration is effected by the Word and the Holy Spirit (not clerics or ritual sacraments or church buildings, by the way). If a person doesn’t know if they’ve experienced regeneration and truly desires it (1) read the Word of God because faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Word of God [Romans]; and (2) wait on the Lord. This is a powerful teaching and practice the Bible teaches you. To wait on the Lord.

If you find the Bible just too overwhelmingly strange and difficult then work up to it. Read the Homeric epics. Read the classical, Greek, historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch). Read some Plato. Read world literature to the point where you are initiated somewhat into the ‘strangeness’ of inspired, higher visual language and the various ancient genres you’ll come across (though the Bible has genres unique to itself such as the Gospels). Do whatever it takes. If you can slog through the endless battle scenes in book after book of the Iliad and begin to see more in them than mere repetitive battle scenes then you will be in good training for the history books of the Bible, for instance… Really, just make the effort to ‘download’ the Bible complete. Read every word, Genesis through Revelation. It will work on you if God has chosen you. (And if you really do it, with good will and dedicated effort, it’s usually a good sign that…well….just do it and wait on the Lord…

Comment #18474

Posted by Don T. Know on February 28, 2005 10:49 AM (e)

What a coinkidink eh Ben? Why the slave owners of the old south were certain God approved of slavery, oddly the abolitionists up north read the exact same book and were utterly certain it mandated that slavery was a sin. It’s almost like, oh I dunno, it’s almost like they’re justifying their politics by arrogantly claiming the Lord of the Universe to speak for him and choose his polotics.

Those fleeing Europe to get away from religious persecution were known to persecute others once they established themselves in the New World. People claiming to do things because God is on their side is as old as theism itself. I see little distinction between Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden, except perhaps that bin Laden has an arsenal and an army to back up his theology.

Comment #18478

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 11:02 AM (e)

>I see little distinction between Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden

Jerry Falwell, for all his faults and eating habits, is a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Osama bin Laden is a follower of the Devil through the false idol moon god ‘allah’. It’s a distinction that shows… (When God said you atheists are fools He was dead on…)

Comment #18479

Posted by Paul on February 28, 2005 11:03 AM (e)

Thank you Steve for confirming that you value what people believe over what people do. That is my definition of immoral. If your god (uncased intentionally) really feels the same way, I have no desire to have anything to do with him. An all powerful god who cares only that you believe in him and his son. That’s really sad. God is REALLY that much of a maglomaniac? wow. And you are right… any God that will make a mass murderer a NEW man but send me to hell for not believing the right way. I must say.. that is evil and an evil god is a devil….

Comment #18482

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 11:20 AM (e)

>Thank you Steve for confirming that you value what people believe over what people do.

The subject is not what I value, the subject is salvation. Being a ‘good’ person won’t save you. The law convicts you. Nobody can follow the law of God. All are sinners. Only Jesus can save you. And He can save you no matter what sins you’ve committed. It’s the devil’s business to accuse and shame human beings before God. The devil is pure vanity and worldly pride. He sees in others what he can’t see in himself. Rather than concerning yourself with what other people are doing, see your own situation.

Comment #18484

Posted by Paul on February 28, 2005 11:33 AM (e)

But morality is the issue. Not some intangible “salvation” that noone on this planet has EVER seen. You can’t fault evolution for being immoral if your form of Christianity is immoral. You can say evolution is against the form of salvation you believe in. But you can’t say its immoral. Perhaps you are unwilling to accept the truth of that argument. But it is the truth.

Comment #18487

Posted by Ben on February 28, 2005 11:52 AM (e)

t’s the devil’s business to accuse and shame human beings before God.

Funny then that you’re accusing everyone here of being atheists at best and satanists at worst. Oh and let’s not forget, fools as well.

The devil is pure vanity and worldly pride.

Isn’t it pure vanity and worldly pride to assume that you’re the only righteous person here, and that you have an understanding of God, his views, his creation, and an ability to speak for him that no one else here (or anywhere else, apparently) does?

He sees in others what he can’t see in himself. Rather than concerning yourself with what other people are doing, see your own situation.

Perhaps you ought to go away and think about how that comment might apply to yourself.

In a nutshell, is it just me, or does anyone else think those comments of Steve’s smack of monstrous hypocrisy?

Comment #18489

Posted by GCT on February 28, 2005 12:04 PM (e)

I’m hurt Steve. You haven’t thanked me for my poem.

Comment #18497

Posted by FredMcX on February 28, 2005 12:31 PM (e)

: does anyone else think those comments of Steve’s smack of monstrous hypocrisy?

Steve is either a troll who is pulling our chain or he really has the cult mindset typical of fundamentalists. My own theory is that years of listening to the moronic garbage that such religions teach actually re-wires the brain so that such ones become totally incapable of logic.

It’s like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. They are so completely convinced that they have the “Truth,” and that their religion alone speaks for God, that if you point to direct lies in print (and you can) made by their leaders it has no effect. You see, it can’t be a lie because our leaders speak for God. Ergo, you are from the Devil and will die.

I suggest leaving Steve to his own devices; if he’s a troll he’ll lose interest. If he’s for real then if this is all he has in life he’s an object of pity rather than scorn.

Comment #18504

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

God wrote:

Job 9:14 How then can I dispute with him? How can I find words to argue with him?

I’ve found the only really challenging way to argue with a bible thumper is to limit yourself to terms they understand. Thus you must include a quote from the bible to back up any assertion you make.

Comment #18508

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Ed Darrell wrote:

But it appears to me you’re saying that at any moment a chimpanzee could give birth to Homo erectus — is that what you’re saying?

Upon the proper signal a stem cell gives birth to a [for example] liver cell. Is that transformation any more or less complex than the transform between successive hominid lines? Does it require random chance for it to happen?

Random chance plays little to no part in oncogenesis. I fail to see any reason (other than a priori, dogmatic rejection of design) why it should be presumed beyond a reasonable doubt that random chance played any major role in phylogenesis.

Comment #18510

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 1:19 PM (e)

Steve, Steve, Steve…

Said the clay to the potter.

The potter doesn’t create the clay in his own likeness, after his own image. Clay doesn’t speak either. That was a very poor analogy.

The bible specifically states that God created man in His own image, in His own likeness.

Are you saying that God appears as a hominid but the resemblance is only superficial?

Please explain exactly what you think God meant when He talked of creating man in His own image.

Comment #18512

Posted by FredMcX on February 28, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

DaveScot,

I’ll see your Job and raise you one:

***********************

Job. 13 v 7

Do you think that God needs your lie so that you can speak deception for him?

***********************

Comment #18514

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 1:32 PM (e)

Dr. Davison

What triggers the chromosome rearrangements and what determines how the new arrangement will differ from the old arrangement?

I can see how the chromosome rearrangement could happen like shuffling a deck of cards and dealing a new hand. New cards aren’t created in that process and no invention is required but it will yield different hands from a large but finite range of possibilities. But the shuffle and deal is still presumably random and the trigger is whenever the prior hand has been played out.

That darn duck-billed platypus sure got an odd hand dealt to him, didn’t he? I’m still trying to figure out how that happened if not by the idea that chance combinations of preformed characters are at work on some level.

Comment #18518

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 1:47 PM (e)

Fred wrote:

Job. 13 v 7 Do you think that God needs your lie so that you can speak deception for him?

Hey, I’m just following orders! No lie.

God wrote:

1 Chronicles 16:23 Sing to the LORD, all the earth; proclaim his salvation day after day.

Comment #18519

Posted by John A. Davison on February 28, 2005 1:49 PM (e)

It is supremely arrogant to presume that God would be so stupid as to create man in his own image. God HAD no image at all. Furthermore since everybody knows that Nature is a she, why wouldn’t God have been a she too, an imageless she. Besides, God is apparently dead. Only Satan still lives in the form of atheist Darwinians who, like all white cats, are stone deaf to Einstein’s “music of the spheres.”

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
Albert Einstein

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man.
ibid

John A. Davison

Comment #18520

Posted by FredMcX on February 28, 2005 1:52 PM (e)

: Hey, I’m just following orders!

Exactly - Methinks I’ve heard that somewhere before.

Comment #18528

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 2:44 PM (e)

>The potter doesn’t create the clay in his own likeness, after his own image. Clay doesn’t speak either. That was a very poor analogy.

Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

>The bible specifically states that God created man in His own image, in His own likeness. Are you saying that God appears as a hominid but the resemblance is only superficial? Please explain exactly what you think God meant when He talked of creating man in His own image.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Man is like God and represents God. This is the meaning of the Hebrew words ‘image’ (tselem) and ‘likeness’ (demut). Similar but not identical. This is how man was created, but man fell and is not the same as he was at the level where he was created. The ways man is similar to God are literally shown throughout the entire Word of God. Adam had powers or functions of his being that man today, after the fall, has lost. Suffice to say: before Adam fell his relationship to God was that of a microcosmos to the Macrocosmos. As Jesus is a Prophet, a Priest, and a King, regenerate man as well becomes a prophet, priest, and king. The attributes included in that can fill volumes, and, again, the Bible elucidates how man is the image of God literally on every page.

Comment #18530

Posted by John A. Davison on February 28, 2005 2:52 PM (e)

The duck-billed platypus is a beautiful example supporting the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Such chimeric combinations of characters are the best evidence possible that there was a definite catalogue of stored features from which an evolving system could (past tense of course) draw. Another is the presence of a perfect placenta in certain sharks. Another is represented in a figure which will appear in the published version of my paper “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.” From Schindewolf, it is of two saber-toothed cats, one Thylacosmilus atrox, a marsupial from the Pliocene of Patagonia, the other Eusmilus sicarius, a placental from the Oligocene of South Dakota. The two forms, structurally remarkably similar, are separated spatially by thousands of miles and temporally by millions of years. The notion that these two forms became similar through a gradual convergent process is patently absurd.

One can read Schindewolf’s description of the figure in the text of my paper so, there is no reason to reproduce it here except to say that it a unequicocal statement that those similarities were DESIGNED, a conclusion with which I am in total agreement.

John A. Davison

Comment #18535

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 3:22 PM (e)

>I’m hurt Steve. You haven’t thanked me for my poem.

GCT: As a poet you make a good evolutionist.

Comment #18542

Posted by Colin on February 28, 2005 4:03 PM (e)

Dr. Davison, I don’t follow your hypothesis. I glanced at your Manifesto, but I didn’t come away with an understanding of your theory. I’d be the first to admit that I’m not a scientist, though. Would you mind briefly describing the theory?

Comment #18543

Posted by Henry J on February 28, 2005 4:03 PM (e)

Re “The duck-billed platypus is a beautiful example supporting the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.”

ONLY if it used the same genes as the other species from which it supposedly combined features.

You might want to be more careful; remarks like that one lead directly to a testable prediction.

Henry

Comment #18544

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 28, 2005 4:19 PM (e)

The notion that these two forms became similar through a gradual convergent process is patently absurd.

That, I believe, is little more than the same argument from incredulity that evolutionary biology has been dealing with since its discovery. “Patently absurd”, “it is inconceivable”, “i hardly think its possible”.

More of the same, and of little use to actually establishing that anything other than minor random changes isolated from others over a LONG period of time can produce significant changes, or that the fact that a particular ecosystem favors a particular type of predator (which can be found in such an ecosystem) means that the ecosystem or the preditor were in any way designed to work together.

Just because you can’t believe its possible to happen “randomly” doesn’t just make it “designed”.

No, i have not seen all of the evidence to simply accept that its that way with cat-like predators (or dog-like predators), but i do respect that certain traits work better in predation than others (open ears, forward-facing eyes, a specific type of teeth for ripping flesh and grinding bones, long noses good for smell, strong legs for short-distance bursts and leaps, and an instinct to “train” the children). If a creature starts the path of predation, it will eventually optimize those features over others. I can accept that its happened multiple times from the myriad examples in the fossil record and from other more easily documented examples of converging evolution such as the lack of legs and the fluke on the tail of whales and dolphins.

By posting such unsupported challenges, all it is to evolutionists is more of the same – i’m going to say evolution doesn’t apply to species X, prove me wrong. ID’s “top 10” (bacterial flagellum being #1 on that list) is simply that – I don’t *believe* it applies, therefore it must be design, prove me wrong and I’ll twist your words to show you’ve supported my view all along.

In the end, it’ll be easier to just ignore that type of challenge because its unscientific and unhelpful to biologists understanding the world today.

Comment #18548

Posted by plunge on February 28, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

“The duck-billed platypus is a beautiful example supporting the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. “

How so? While observers might see it as similar to other animal forms, on closer inspection, the features that stand out (particularly the bill) aren’t really what the seem. The bill isn’t like a bird beak at all (not hard, and not truly shaped in the same fashion), and in fact it’s MUCH more like the sensory organs of star-nosed moles, except that instead of touch, it works by sensing electrical fields. And so on for the other seemingly “borrowed” features.

Comment #18550

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 28, 2005 5:38 PM (e)

“the Bible elucidates how man is the image of God literally on every page.”

—————————-

Reeeaaalllyyyyyy ……

Tell me, Steve, is God black or white? Male or female? Short or tall? Thin or fat? Red hair? Blond hair? Brown hair? Black hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Green eyes? Please please tell me which humans are closer to the “image of God” than the rest….

By the way, Steve, I have another question for you (that you will also not answer). My question is this: Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?

You see, Steve, I have an awfully hard time believing that you are infallible or inerrant. In fact, Steve, I have an awfully hard time beleiving that you are any more divine or holy or prophetic or authoritative than my car mechanic or the counter girl at the local deli or the kid who delivers my pizzas. So please feel free to explain to me why I should believe that ….

Comment #18551

Posted by ~DS~ on February 28, 2005 5:51 PM (e)

BTW I dedicated a post to the Lenny’s question of creationists who presume to speak for God and Genesis. So far, no takers, not one. I wonder why they’re so reluctant to answer that question?

Comment #18552

Posted by John A. Davison on February 28, 2005 6:04 PM (e)

I was thinking mostly of its egg laying. The Platypus and the Echidna have been preserved so that when I came along I could point out how they supported the Prescribed Evolutionaty Hypothesis. How do you like that for predestination? On the other hand if the bill of the Platypus does not resemble a duck’s bill, why then is it called the Duck-billed Platypus?

Joe Shelby, like Ernst Mayr is obviously (in Mayr’s own words) a “dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian:” whatever floats your boat Joe. In my opinion you are chasing a phantom.

Colin

Since you just “glanced” at my Manifesto, I am not likely to try to summarize 50 odd pages of
Darwinian devastation for you now. I am sure that other participants here will be all to happy to tell you what a total disaster my views really are as well as are those of the six great scientists to whom I dedicated that work. My Manifesto, with the exception of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis is almost entirely based on the conclusions of others, not one of whom was a Darwinian and not one of whom spent the greater part of his life glued to a chair at Harvard, Oxford or Cornell. All six of them were acknowledged leaders in their respective fields and not one of them was so weak minded as to describe himself as an “evolutionist.” That became the prerogative of mental lightweights like Mayr, Gould, Provine and Dawkins, not one of whom ever had an original thought in his entire life. Their only contribution has been to flood the semipopular literature with several lineal feet of Darwinian pablum. As for those who were stupid enough to buy any of it:

“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”
Montaigne.

There now, I feel somewhat better. Thanks for listening.

John A. Davison

Comment #18558

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 7:39 PM (e)

What is it about evolutionists and claims of unanswered questions? I answer all your question. You perhaps don’t understand the answer, but they are answered. I’ve answered the ‘Lenny question’ four or five times now (and what’s strange in the accusations of ‘no answer’ is you’re not even moving the goal posts, you’re just merely claiming that repeated answers to your questions don’t exist). The juvenile, retreat-into-unreality world of post-modernist evolutionists…

Comment #18559

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 7:43 PM (e)

Just because Intelligent Design scientists have exposed you evolutionists as angry morons with a flat-earth theory…

Comment #18562

Posted by GCT on February 28, 2005 8:06 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

GCT: As a poet you make a good evolutionist.

Hmmm, I rather thought you would like it. I realize that it comes from a lowly sinner such as myself, but I swear that I wasn’t trying to be idolatrous.

Comment #18563

Posted by DonM on February 28, 2005 8:12 PM (e)

Hey Steve,

I’m just a layman, who has been trying to follow this thread. In #18558 you say that you have answered Lenny’s question several times. Will you please do it again for me? I have re-read the comments back quite a ways, but I must have missed your answer… there is a lot of stuff here. Please put a first line on it that says something like “Answer to Lenny’s Question:” and go from there. Thank you.

Please also try to avoid slogans and “name calling”… just make it simple. When you says “post-modernist evolutionists” that has about the same impact as “running dog capitalists” used to.

thanks very much. I’m new at this :-)
Don

Comment #18564

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 8:20 PM (e)

DonM: Comment #18243

Comment #18567

Posted by DonM on February 28, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

Steve said in 18243:

“Spirit speaks to Spirit (this requires regeneration); and the Word speaks to - and convicts - conscience. The truth of that Word is known by conscience. All compromising of that Word, all man-centered spinning of that Word, all self-will, vain, prideful demands on that Word don’t fool conscience. You know. When you are in rebellion you still know. You can’t escape being convicted by the Word. When a Christian speaks the Word to you you are convicted whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not or whether you recognize it or not. Your conscience knows.”
=============
I know that these are all English words, but I have never seen them put together like this before. Can you take a few minutes and explain some of these phrases in lay terms?

“Spirit speaks to Spirit” -
“the Word speaks to - and convicts - conscience” -
“all man-centered spinning of that Word” -
“convicted by the Word” -

when you say “convicted”, do you mean “convinced”?

I cannot see how this paragragh answers Lenny’s question as to why your opinion is more authoritative than anyone elses opinion.

thanks again
DonM

Comment #18568

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 28, 2005 8:39 PM (e)

John,

“..if the bill of the Platypus does not resemble a duck’s bill, why then is it called the Duck-billed Platypus?”

If the mitochondrial “Eve” lived tens or hundreds of thousands of years too early to have tasted of the fruit of the tree, why then is she called Eve?

Comment #18569

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 28, 2005 8:46 PM (e)

Um-m, Steve,

Please pardon the impertinence, but exactly what the hell are you talking about, or, perhaps more to the point - what the hell are you smoking? I’d like to be introduced to your supplier.

That was the most unfathomable gobbledygook I’ve seen on these boards in quite a while.

Comment #18570

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 28, 2005 8:57 PM (e)

actually, i’m glad Steve brought up “post-modernist” again. i’d come to miss it in his last 25 posts…

Comment #18571

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 28, 2005 9:02 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #18572

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 9:03 PM (e)

Well, DonM, Lenny’s question was more than you as you put it. Lenny’s question was very much in the context of Biblical truth. Here was Lenny’s question:

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than we should pay to the religious opinions
of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the kid who delivered my
pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s.

So, you read my response and now you write:

>I know that these are all English words, but I have never seen them put together like this before. Can you take a few minutes and explain some of these phrases in lay terms? “Spirit speaks to Spirit” -

The Holy Spirit is in the Word of God, and when a person has the Holy Spirit in them then Spirit speaks to Spirit. It is similar to saying that a Christian knows the voice of the Shepherd (a sheep knows the voice of the Shepherd). When you become a regenerate Christian you are a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then illuminates the Word of God for you. Spirit speaks to Spirit.

>”the Word speaks to - and convicts - conscience” -

All human beings have conscience (buried to greater or lesser degree in each individual though it may be), and conscience knows truth. So when the Word of God is spoken to you (or you read it) then despite yourself you either see its truth or you are convicted by that truth in the act of denying or running away from that truth.

>”all man-centered spinning of that Word” -

You can be man-centered in your approach to the Word of God or God-centered in your approach. When you are man-centered you demand that the Word of God come down to your level and be filtered through your sense of what is right and true and ‘logical’ and etc. Your vanity and worldly pride call the shots. When you are God-centered in your approach you meet the Word of God at its level and allow it to speak to you no matter how much it ‘insults’ you. For instance, if you are God-centered in your approach then when you come upon something in Scripture that you don’t understand you then assume you’re just not currently capable of understanding rather than assuming that what you don’t understand is just merely ‘stupid’ or ‘illogical’ or ‘nonsense’. In other words, to be God-centered is to see that the Word of God is above your level of understanding and that it will challenge your current level of understanding (your current level of being even). A man-centered approach to Scripture insists on confuting and contradicting at every step of the way, bringing god’s truth down to your level and pronouncing it this that or the other based on the dicates of your vaninty and worldly pride and self-will.

>”convicted by the Word” - when you say “convicted”, do you mean “convinced”?

No, that means ‘busted’. This is what the law does to people (as opposed to the gospel, and there is law in both the Old and New Testaments just as there is gospel in both the Old and New Testaments): the law convicts you of your true standing with God. Once you are made aware of the law you have no excuse. The Bible also states that people have no excuse based on General Revealtion (the natural creation) itself, so the Bible is very clear that people have no excuse and can’t claim ignorance regarding their situation vis-a-vis God; i.e. as sinners condemned before God… (The gospel, on the other hand, brings the good news of salvation…)

The above paragraph is the subject of Law and Gospel; a major subject of the Bible… In fact, what you are expressing when you say you have never seen English words used like this, etc. is a basic unfamiliarity with Biblical and theological language…

Comment #18574

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 9:14 PM (e)

DonM: I see you yourself wrote: ‘and explain some of these phrases in lay terms’, so delete my last paragraph of my last post as I wouldn’t have written it if I’d seen your use of the phrase ‘lay terms’ which obviously suggests you knew I was using Biblical/theological language…

Comment #18576

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 28, 2005 9:21 PM (e)

Hey Steve according to Jews whose religion you are defaming by worshipping a false messiah the Ten Commandments and all Mosaic laws only apply to Jews.

Also non Jews are only considered to be under the thumb of god as dictacted by the Noahide commandments which are very lenient.

And the Holy Spirit is female and not in people who claim to speak for God. That is Pagan beliefs you are expousing not Biblical.

I would rather take the Jews understanding of the Bible then a fundie Christian whose view is reguraited offal dating from the 1920s

Comment #18578

Posted by DonM on February 28, 2005 9:40 PM (e)

Steve;

WOW! No wonder there is a lack of communication here. You are speaking “Biblical/theological language” which seems to be made up of random English words and everyone else is speaking common English.

Talk about ships passing in the night!

thanks for trying
DonM

Lenny, well at least I got Steve to give some “definitions” of his point of view… I think!

Comment #18579

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 9:51 PM (e)

>Hey Steve according to Jews whose religion you are defaming by worshipping a false messiah the Ten Commandments and all Mosaic laws only apply to Jews.

Hm. It’s difficult to answer this type of statement without giving you an education. Suffice to say that the political and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament no longer apply, but the moral laws (of which category the Ten Commandments fall into) do still apply. The question of Jewish relgion vs. Christianity; Israelites vs. spiritual Israel; etc., is in the category of that education mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph…

>Also non Jews are only considered to be under the thumb of god as dictacted by the Noahide commandments which are very lenient.

Muslims and Hindus can have their say regarding Christians as well, but their all kicking against the pricks.

>And the Holy Spirit is female and not in people who claim to speak for God. That is Pagan beliefs you are expousing not Biblical.

It is New Testament teaching (actually Old and New Testament teaching). And Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘He’ [John 14:16, 14:26]. The Holy Spirit is God.

>I would rather take the Jews understanding of the Bible then a fundie Christian whose view is reguraited offal dating from the 1920s

You can take the Jews all you want, of course, and good luck (no, I take it back, luck won’t help you). As for my theology: it is apostolic Biblical doctrine. That would be 1st century A.D. (or CE if you prefer). Fundamentalists in the early part of the 20th century were reacting to liberal theologies and were intent on recovering or restating the fundamentals of the faith. The stereotypes they or their name conjures up is based on various aspects of their approach that exceeded Biblical doctrinal warrant (not that the fundamentals of the faith aren’t enough to upset non-Christians of most stripes), but they were basically fighting an extreme and became somewhat a mirror opposite of that extreme (that is to say, when they just weren’t being characatured by the usual suspects in media and academia… I am, for the record, castigated by those same types today… I don’t mock them, though. I understand them and have good will toward them. They have what is most important (belief in Jesus as their Lord and Savior)…

Comment #18580

Posted by Steve on February 28, 2005 9:53 PM (e)

Oh, DonM, you disappoint me. And the language I was using in my response to Lenny was hardly technical. Perhaps you’ve never heard of Spirit or conscience before, but I would suggest that you are rare in that…

Comment #18581

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 28, 2005 10:10 PM (e)

John Davison said:

I was thinking mostly of its egg laying. The Platypus and the Echidna have been preserved so that when I came along I could point out how they supported the Prescribed Evolutionaty Hypothesis. How do you like that for predestination? On the other hand if the bill of the Platypus does not resemble a duck’s bill, why then is it called the Duck-billed Platypus?

Have you ever examined the bill of a platypus? The bill resembles a duck bill in general shape, but that is all. They are more like leather than a duck’s bill.

Your question is tantamount to claiming the American songbird, the Cardinal, is an official in the Catholic Church – well, it’s called a “cardinal,” isn’t it?

The platypus snout resembles your lips more than they resemble a duck’s bill, on closer examination.

Hey, have you ever seen a star-nosed mole?

Comment #18591

Posted by Carleton Wu on February 28, 2005 11:26 PM (e)

Steve,
I believe I can serve as a translator of your answer to Lenny’s question into standard, nontheological english:
I know that Im right. Furthermore, you know that Im right. So why are we still arguing about this?’
I can see that you weren’t raised by Jesuits…

But I happen to disagree. I believe that you are incorrect. Furthermore, I believe that you know, deep down, that you are incorrect. Humans cannot survive without a certain amount of logical thinking- otherwise, they’d fall prey to accidents fairly quickly in this dangerous world of ours. So, deep down, you know that you’re position is completely nonsensical and illogical. Logic speaks to brain. Logic, if you will, convicts brain of its truth. You can either listen to the logic, or you can run away from it, but you still know it’s truth.
(Feel free to capitalize any of those terms if it makes the argument seem more compelling).

And congrats to John Davidson, for actually producing a scientific, testable hypothesis. As Henry J pointed out, he hypothesized that the platypus’s bill had a similar biological origin to the bill of a bird.
Of course, this is incorrect- but that’s the beauty of science, John! You’re now one step closer to truth. If you’ll discard your falsified hypothesis and move on, that is.

Comment #18592

Posted by Bill Ware on February 28, 2005 11:27 PM (e)

Steve,

Let me see if I understand what you said in #18572:

If we rely on delusions, we’ll be less delusional than if we rely on reality, and since you rely on more delusions than we do, then you speak with more authority than the rest of us?

Is that your answer to Lenny’s question in a nut shell?

Comment #18593

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 11:31 PM (e)

Henry J wrote:

ONLY if it used the same genes as the other species from which it supposedly combined features.

You might want to be more careful; remarks like that one lead directly to a testable prediction.

Please excuse my ignorance, Hank. Could you describe for this old jarhead exactly which genes code for body type characters such as beaks or lips and egg-laying vs. bearing live young?

Thanks in advance.

Comment #18595

Posted by Jelly on February 28, 2005 11:53 PM (e)

This series is very educational. Thank you all!

In post 18471, Steve wrote “Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross IS sufficient to wash one clean and make one able to approach the presence of God. You don’t ‘make ammends’ to God, you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour (and High Priest, i.e. Mediator between you and God). Your relationship has to be with Jesus because Jesus is your Prophet, your Priest, and your King. It is Jesus that Mediates and reconciles you to God.”

Steve’s comments got me to thinking. Here are a few stupid questions that others might like to ponder:

* Is God so busy that she needs a mediator? If so, what’s got her so busy? Are we being two-timed?
* From what I hear, we once had a direct line to the top. What happened?
* If we call God directly (or even collect), is our call redirected? Suppose that it’s an emergency?
* What if you lived in a place where (or at a time when) the mediator was unknown. What happens to you then? Do you then get direct line to the top?
* Suppose you die before ever having the opportunity to join God’s union. Are you turned away at the pearly gates? Is it possible there’s a backdoor?

Thank you all for an entertaining and educational series of posts.

BTW. What ever happened to Snowden?

Comment #18599

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 12:12 AM (e)

Carleton Wu? Of the droll Wu clan?

Jelly writes: “Is God so busy that she needs a mediator?”

There goes Jelly throwing down the she pronoun. Crazy! Shocks the room EVERY time…

Bill Ware writes in: “Is that your answer to Lenny’s question in a nut shell?” Um…no. And I only answer you because if I didn’t you’d hound me for three hundred posts that I “didn’t answer your question”…

Comment #18600

Posted by DaveScot on March 1, 2005 12:14 AM (e)

Hey Steve!

What’s going to happen to Hindus and Buddhists who’ve spent their entire lives doing the kind of good deeds that Christ wanted us to do but, through no fault of their own, haven’t been exposed to the New Testament and thus haven’t a clue about how to become saved?

Do billions of good people like those get told at the Pearly Gates to go to hell when they die?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The Lord God Almighty Hisself thru Matthew wrote:

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Comment #18602

Posted by DaveScot on March 1, 2005 12:22 AM (e)

Wu wrote:

As Henry J pointed out, he [Davison] hypothesized that the platypus’s bill had a similar biological origin to the bill of a bird.

Dr. Davison hypothesized no such thing. He said he was thinking about the egg laying, not the beak. Apologize immediately.

Comment #18603

Posted by Carleton Wu on March 1, 2005 12:25 AM (e)

Steve,
That’s my name, don’t wear it out. Im particularly concerned about this ‘wearing out’ process because repeating my name appears to be the sum total of your rebuttal.

btw
Matthew 5:22 “…whosoever shall say [to his brother], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

You, sir, are a hypocrite. You beat your bible and preach in public, but ou violate this warning regularly, and in a most unchristian, prideful, and condescending manner. Your kind has more in common with the pharisees.

Comment #18607

Posted by Jelly on March 1, 2005 12:41 AM (e)

Jelly writes: “Is God so busy that she needs a mediator?”

Steve responds: There goes Jelly throwing down the she pronoun. Crazy! Shocks the room EVERY time …

___________

Steve just raised a new stupid question.

If it’s correct to refer to God as a “he” then does this mean that God has male genitalia? But, if God’s got no “stuff” then why is one pronoun more preferable than the other? What IS the correct pronoun for the all-powerful deity?

Hey! Steve may have answered one of my earlier questions. If God’s got genitals then maybe that explains why he’s (or she’s) brought in the mediator? Maybe he (or she) is off making new life on new planets! So, if we do eventually find life on a new planet then would that mean that God’s a player? But of course, that wouldn’t tell us which pronoun was correct, would it?

Comment #18608

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 12:43 AM (e)

Here’s how it works, Enquiring Mind: the more you know, the more responsible you are for your impenitence. God is not constrained by human perceptions of time, or by any aspect of time that constrains us, and with God all is possible; but for us, if the truth has been made known to us then it just simply has, and thus… (And God knows what is in your heart…)

The terror of the situation is most dire for those who have had the truth made known to them, whether they are Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Panda’s Thumb regulars, whatever…

And, for the record (and once again) being good doesn’t save you (however you define good). You’ll just be a ‘good’ person still imprisoned in the Kingdom of Death. You need the Savior (whether you are the mass murderer brought up earlier or you are the ‘noble, person-of-the-Earth, person-of-love Hindu or Buddhist who doesn’t set your wife or daughters on fire that you pose in your question)…

Comment #18621

Posted by Jelly on March 1, 2005 1:16 AM (e)

Steve writes: “And, for the record (and once again) being good doesn’t save you (however you define good). You’ll just be a ‘good’ person still imprisoned in the Kingdom of Death. You need the Savior (whether you are the mass murderer brought up earlier or you are the ‘noble, person-of-the-Earth, person-of-love Hindu or Buddhist who doesn’t set your wife or daughters on fire that you pose in your question) … “

I just can’t help it. The stupid questions keep coming. Steve is my muse.

* If Steve is correct then do we really need all 10 commandments? Is it possible that God meant for Moses to edit then down BEFORE they were put into stone?
* If God really wants us to know the Truth when we hear it then shouldn’t it come with a good feeling by way of a happy messenger? Where’s the euphoria? Okay, just suppose that it DOES come with euphoria but it’s contaminated by the messenger. So, if you DID get a bad messenger then shouldn’t you expect a discount at the gate?

Comment #18623

Posted by Wayne Francis on March 1, 2005 2:16 AM (e)

Well this is all well and good. I’m going to the beach with a “friend” to break the 7th commandment. I can do so with full realisation that in the end it doesn’t matter. All I have to do is accept Jesus as my lord and my savior. I’ll have a laugh with Jesus about my evolutionary beliefs when that happens too. Maybe buy Hitler a drink or 2 for his good work on accepting Jesus as his savior and wave at the Dali Lamas burning for eternity in hell. I’m saved! Now to go commit that adulterous act.

Have you ever thought about this!?!?
It is a sin to sleep with someone elses wife. But it is not a sin for a man to sleep with other women. How nice is that God. Knock up all the women you want as long as they are not owned by another man.

Sheesh, why didn’t God put in the 11th commandment “Thou shalt not have any clothed women before me”

Comment #18629

Posted by Mike Walker on March 1, 2005 2:43 AM (e)

To keep it simple in Steve’s little world:

All unsaved people above the “age of accountability” are going to Hell, period. Doesn’t matter how bad or good you are - the next Hitler, the next Mother Theresa, you go to Hell. If, woe betide you, you happen to hear about Jesus and “reject him”, it’s double lashings for brimstone for you.

BTW, in fundamentalist doctrine, you can’t have it any other way - if you say that if you don’t hear the Gospel you can go to Heaven anyway if you’re good means that it would be better to ban all Bibles and burn down the churches - not exactly a vote winner with the clergy.

The problem is that this is all very shallow logic. Dig a bit deeper and you find a real mess.

How about new born babies? Most fundamentalists will let them off the hook - if they die, since they are not responsible for their actions, they get a free pass to paradise. (Ever heard a minister of the cloth tell bereaved parents that their kid has just passed on to Hell?). Same goes with aborted foetuses, which should make the abortion doctor the fundamentalist’s greatest hero - 42 million souls saved, and counting!! (a much better record than the Calvinist Church, I’d wager).

You’re a Christian mother living in Saudi Arabia (keeping your faith secret, of course) and you had your first son. The odds of him becoming a born-again Christian are probably about 1 in 100, but if she kills him now, he is assured of an eternity in Heaven (as opposed to, say, 70 years on Earth, and an eternity in Hell. Sure, killing is a sin, but Mom is born-again, and murder is not an unpardonable sin (so speaks Steve) so it all works out fine for both of them in the end. (Even if Mom is not a “true Christian”, many mothers would willingly sacrifice their own lives - even risking eternal hellfire - if they knew their children would be saved from a fate worse than death)

What about the four year old kid, just figured out willful deception that morning and just lied about hitting his baby sister for the first time - hence he has just “lost his innocence”. He is way to Sunday School where he is going to learn about the baby Jesus. Uh-oh, when mommy isn’t looking, he wanders out into the street and the poor truck driver can’t stop in time. Sorry kid, it’s a one way trip to Hell for you (aw shucks, yesterday it would have been different, tough luck)

There are many other examples you can cite - the mentally disabled (are they innocent their whole lives?), brain damaged adults (do they revert to innocence or did they just lose their last chance?), etc. etc. And these are not just hypothetical cases - every single one has cropped up thousands of times (at least) ever since the salvation doctrine was invented (sorry, given to us).

Other points.

Why are babies exempt? According to Steve, we are all scum and deserve an eternity in Hell, so babies should go there too (yet because that thought is too hard to stomach, the free pass is assumed).

All Steve’s talk about general revelation is bunk, a smoke screen. According to fundies like him, even if you “get it” via general revelation you still go to Hell unless you happen to be lucky enough to live in the right place, at the right time, to hear about Jesus and “repent”.

If Steve claims to have all the answers to these issues, he is lying. He may say “he trusts in God to make the right decisions” but that is just passing the buck and he’s just given up the right to tell anyone to where their mortal soul is heading.

To all you fundamentalists out reading this, think on these issues a while. It might make your head hurt, but something good may eventually come of it.

Mike

Comment #18638

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 6:19 AM (e)

I like to answer with ?If people are descended from their grandmothers, why do grandmothers still exist??

Not a good analogy. A better one is: If George Bush is descended from Pierces, why are there still Pierces?

Comment #18641

Posted by John A. Davison on March 1, 2005 6:43 AM (e)

I think I will move to another thread as I am obviously wasting my time with this one. Just a few parting thoughts from Montaigne.

“Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”

“He that I am reading seems always to have the most force.”

“Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”

Have a nice aimless, pointless, random or semi-random, mutation intoxicated, Natural Selection propelled Darwinian day.

John A. Davison

Comment #18642

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 6:49 AM (e)

DaveScot wrote:

Don’t get your anal retentive panties in a bunch, evolutionists. “Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

The genius seems to have overlooked the fact that the people who ask the question don’t believe that men and apes do have a common ancestor.

Comment #18646

Posted by Bill Ware on March 1, 2005 7:16 AM (e)

Steve,

Rejecting reality as you suggest, is rejecting God, since God is reality.

We show our love of God by increasing our knowledge of God’s creation through the study of the sciences which includes evolutionary biology.

Who is to say how God created the biological diversity we find on our planet? It’s an insult to God to question His method.

Comment #18655

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 1, 2005 8:49 AM (e)

Have a nice aimless, pointless, random or semi-random, mutation intoxicated, Natural Selection propelled Darwinian day.

and here we go again with the same crap that life under darwin is life without “meaning or purpose” (to use the Matrix’s variations of the theme). I’d still really like to know why the ID crowd is so utterly terrified of the possibility that there is no inherent meaning to life, that it just is and make of it what you can.

In deeply reading their material, that seems to be at the heart of it all – an absolute terror that we’re not unique, that we’re not here for a specific purpose. We had to be designed because we exist for a purpose; there has to be a God who created us because we exist to serve him / worship him / whatever.

And yet, when they then decide that their purpose in life is to convince the world that we have all been given a purpose in life, they completely fail to realize it was their own decisions that brought them to that point. They can claim to have “discovered” their purpose all they want, but in the end, they CHOSE to either do it or not; they chose their “purpose” regardless of how they think the choice came to them.

Comment #18657

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 1, 2005 9:07 AM (e)

Have a nice aimless, pointless, random or semi-random, mutation intoxicated, Natural Selection propelled Darwinian day.

and here we go again with the same crap that life under darwin is life without “meaning or purpose” (to use the Matrix’s variations of the theme). I’d still really like to know why the ID crowd is so utterly terrified of the possibility that there is no inherent meaning to life, that it just is and make of it what you can.

In deeply reading their material, that seems to be at the heart of it all – an absolute terror that we’re not unique, that we’re not here for a specific purpose. We had to be designed because we exist for a purpose; there has to be a God who created us because we exist to serve him / worship him / whatever.

And yet, when they then decide that their purpose in life is to convince the world that we have all been given a purpose in life, they completely fail to realize it was their own decisions that brought them to that point. They can claim to have “discovered” their purpose all they want, but in the end, they CHOSE to either do it or not; they chose their “purpose” regardless of how they think the choice came to them.

Comment #18658

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 1, 2005 9:11 AM (e)

*sigh* sorry ‘bout that, but pt seems to have a hassle at times. i made the first post and didn’t see it; tried again, it said i made the post, yet 15 minutes later i still didn’t see it. so i tried it again and suddenly i have two of them (look at the timestamps – the first one never showed up until the second one went through).

Comment #18672

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 10:59 AM (e)

To all the atheist’s challenges above since my last post here is how it works: God deals with His creation very capably and, though justly, with fairness. The atheist always wants to say ‘what about these people? what about those people?’ when it is you that is in the danger of hellfire you pose others as being in. Once you have been made known of the truth you are convicted. God knows what is in each person’s heart. When God chooses souls He chooses from eternity. God operates above our perception of time. God says to believers spread the Gospel. How this works out with all created souls God is fully capable of taking care of. Shifting the focus away from you, though, doesn’t get you off the hook. You are a condemned sinner now. You need the Saviour, and you need to be born anew (regeneration). You need to read the Word of God, give up your vain mocking of God and running away from God, humble yourself before your Creator, and wait on the Lord… You can’t fool God. God knows what is in your heart…

A good start in humbling yourself before your Creator would be to declare a victory over the power your vanity and worldly pride has had over you and walk away from the anti-Christ, atheist dogma ‘theory of evolution’…

Comment #18675

Posted by Enough on March 1, 2005 11:08 AM (e)

Way to duck everyone’s questions Steve. Good job. You had a chance to convince us all, and you blew it. I’m sure Jesus is disappointed in you.

Comment #18676

Posted by Jelly on March 1, 2005 11:12 AM (e)

Steve’s beliefs are dangerous. My God is ALWAYS loving, kind, and patient but never angry, selfish, or vindictive. It is a struggle to imitate her (or him ;) but it’s worth the effort. This is MY belief and it gives me the spiritual strength to explore the physical world. Science is my chosen tool for exploring this natural world. Fortunately, I also know that science is not a tool for exploring my spirituality, for mediating my relationship with God, or for telling me right from wrong.

Okay, one more stupid question.

On God’s business card, should it say anything more than “Love”?

Now, I’m back to lurking. This has been a very enlightening thread but I’m ready to read something about science.

Comment #18680

Posted by Steve. Not the creationist IDiot one. on March 1, 2005 11:19 AM (e)

You are a condemned sinner now. You need the Saviour, and you need to be born anew (regeneration). You need to read the Word of God, give up your vain mocking of God and running away from God, humble yourself before your Creator, and wait on the Lord … You can’t fool God. God knows what is in your heart …

A good start in humbling yourself before your Creator would be to declare a victory over the power your vanity and worldly pride has had over you and walk away from the anti-Christ, atheist dogma ‘theory of evolution’ …

Not believing in magic has worked so far, why change now.

Comment #18684

Posted by Frank Schmidt on March 1, 2005 12:30 PM (e)

A good start in humbling yourself before your Creator would be to declare a victory over the power your vanity and worldly pride has had over you and walk away from

Drat. I thought he was going to say “Intelligent Design Creationist fundamentalist nonsense”

Comment #18685

Posted by Marek14 on March 1, 2005 12:32 PM (e)

Let me tell you something, Steve. If I die and go to Hell, if the God you praise will really do that and lets me suffer for eternity - then I am willing to suffer for eternity rather than serve a God who puts faith over truth, conviction over good, love for him over love for others.

If the universe is guided by a hand of God like that - THEN the universe has no purpose. Then everything will ultimately happen as he wishes, and where is the purpose in that? I prefer to believe that I can change the small part of the universe I belong in. I prefer not having any insurmountable boundaries, where God hits my fingers and says “Don’t go there, that’s my territory.”

Rather to live freely in the sea of universe, albeit mortal, than to be watched like a fish in aquarium by petty and vengeful God. I think you don’t talk like this because you love your God. It’s because you fear him. You are afraid he would punish you if you didn’t say what he wants you to say.

Comment #18687

Posted by Mike Walker on March 1, 2005 12:48 PM (e)

The atheist always wants to say ‘what about these people? what about those people?’ when it is you that is in the danger of hellfire you pose others as being in.

That old dodge. People shouldn’t ask difficult questions because it only makes things worse for themselves. How convenient.

Once you have been made known of the truth you are convicted.

So you keep claiming to know the truth - why don’t you enlighten us and give us the answers us degenerate evolutionists are asking you.

I’ll keep it very simple for you… Tell us, are there billions of dead babies and/or children (old enough to know right from wrong) writhing in eternal agony in Hell right now?

If you don’t know the answer, have the courage to tell us, it’s all right, we’ll understand.

If I don’t get a straight answer this time, I too wash my hands of this thread. Smug little Steve can continue on his massive ego trip without my help.

Comment #18688

Posted by Lamuella on March 1, 2005 1:00 PM (e)

here’s my question.

I understand from Steve’s posts that I have to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior to get into heaven.

My question is: WHY?

Why is this acceptance necessary?

If God loves me and is omnipotent, can’t he put me in heaven anyway? Maybe I’ll accept JC as my lord and savior after playing a few games of frisbee with him. It might take a while. I always need time to warm up to people.

If I’m heading for the lake of fire then I’ll NEVER get the chance to warm up to him.

Comment #18689

Posted by lamuella on March 1, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

pun intended, of course

Comment #18692

Posted by Mike Walker on March 1, 2005 1:24 PM (e)

Why is this acceptance necessary?

Because your great-great-great-…-great-grandmother listened to a serpent and bit into a fruit. Isn’t that obvious to you??

I can see it now - Steve’s five year old son raids the fridge and eats daddy’s chocolate bar. Steve corners his son in the kitchen, confront him and extracts a confession. The punishment? “You and all your offspring from now and for eternity will suffer the torments of hell… unless they repent and crave my forgiveness.”

Comment #18693

Posted by Paul on March 1, 2005 1:30 PM (e)

If I am understanding steve right, the difference between morality and immorality is whether it happens to you or not… We are only supposed to concern ourselves and not with others. It doesnt matter how others are treated, just think about ourselves.

The atheist always wants to say ‘what about these people? what about those people?’ when it is you that is in the danger of hellfire you pose others as being in.

Rather than concerning yourself with what other people are doing, see your own situation.

Does that really sound like something Jesus would have said?

And if we are only supposed to be concerned about ourselves, then why are you even bothering? What harm is there in teaching evolution to others?

And for the record, the majority of the people I have met in my life are GOOD people. This idea that people are inherently “bad” and “sinful”; in the end its just a way for the church to try and maintain its power hold. And I am looking at myself. I am a good person. I lead a GREAT life. And am a GOOD person. And if Steve’s god is truly THE GOD, I will be proud to stand against him with the other 99% of the planet.

Because what is right, is right. And the god Steve worships is evil. And I won’t bow to evil - even if it is the most powerful being in the universe.

PS… You are kidding about Jesus saying the Spirit was a “he”, right? I mean you know what he said in Hebrew uses the feminine. Or do you think he spoke in English?

Comment #18694

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 1, 2005 1:32 PM (e)

When God chooses souls He chooses from eternity.

uh, but God created those souls, didn’t he? God “designed” the body to put that soul in and the family to birth it and the city/state/country, and by fiat, the religion (or lack thereof) they would be first and most commonly exposed to.

As such, by your reasoning, God *set us up to fail”. (and a particularly literate reading of Genesis supports that view astoudingly well.) that’s hardly the kind of God worthy of any Love or acceptance. Particularly when the only way to salvation is to ACCEPT the fact that God set us up to fail.

And Steve, as long as you follow such a literate interpretation of Christ and Paul, why haven’t you sold all your belongings (including your computer) to follow Him?

Comment #18696

Posted by Joe Shelby on March 1, 2005 1:34 PM (e)

“You and all your offspring from now and for eternity will suffer the torments of hell … unless they repent and crave my forgiveness.”

but therein lies another flaw – even when Women repent and ask (and theoretically recieve) his forgiveness, they still suffer the punishment of Eve, of menstral cycles and painful childbirth and all those hassles. At what point is the forgiveness so sincere that this punishment finally is lifted?

Comment #18706

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 1, 2005 2:45 PM (e)

A good start in humbling yourself before your Creator would be to declare a victory over the power your vanity and worldly pride has had over you and walk away from the anti-Christ, atheist dogma ‘theory of evolution’ …

There you go again, accusing Christ’s healing mission of being from the antichrist instead.

Your name is really Wormwood, isn’t it?

If it does the work of Jesus, even if it looks like it’s “atheist,” it’s good, and according to Paul we should seek after those things.

Evolution is good. Ignorance is not good. How can you keep mixing those things up? And how do you expect anyone to think you’re other than a crank if you do?

Comment #18724

Posted by steve on March 1, 2005 5:12 PM (e)

Comment #18277

Posted by Matt Inlay on February 26, 2005 07:30 PM

From the OP:
We’ve all heard the Creationist refrain (also a Dennis Miller joke), “If humans evolved from Monkeys, Why are there still Monkeys?”

What’s the Dennis Miller joke?

What’s the Dennis Miller joke?

Comment #18726

Posted by steve on March 1, 2005 5:23 PM (e)

And for the record, the majority of the people I have met in my life are GOOD people. This idea that people are inherently “bad” and “sinful”; in the end its just a way for the church to try and maintain its power hold. And I am looking at myself. I am a good person. I lead a GREAT life. And am a GOOD person. And if Steve’s god is truly THE GOD, I will be proud to stand against him with the other 99% of the planet.

Because what is right, is right. And the god Steve worships is evil. And I won’t bow to evil - even if it is the most powerful being in the universe.

reminds me of a Hitchens comment, repeated here in paraphrase from a bad memory:

“A universe with god would be like a celestial North Korea. You have endless opportunities for self-abnegation, to praise the Leader, to thank Him for giving you everything, but it’s worse: You can defect from North Korea, or you can die, and thereby escape. But if you’re a religious believer the Leader goes on persecuting you after you’re dead, and you have to keep worshipping Him, and praising Him, and thanking Him for being born… this is servility squared. I’m very happy he doesn’t exist.”

Comment #18729

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 5:45 PM (e)

The Kingdom of God is not a tyrannical regime. It’s a Kingdom. And the state and standing of Christians in that Kingdom is of adopted children of the King. Heirs of the Living God. Kings in their own right. Prophets, priests, and kings in their own right.

Read the Word of God. Set your juvenile, worthless vanity and worldly pride aside and read the Word of God. Ask God to send the Holy Spirit into your heart. Wait on the Lord. Now you are a prisoner of death and the devil. Now you are asleep in the Kingdom of the devil. Read the Word of God and give yourselves a chance to awaken…

Comment #18731

Posted by Marek14 on March 1, 2005 6:03 PM (e)

And who says that? Who claims all of this? People who worship that God. And they get it from him, or so they say. So in the end, he claims this about his heaven. He might be just a deceitful brat for all zou know.

I might be the prisoner of death and devil. I’m open-minded enough that I admit that. But if it’s the case, I prefer it to be that way. So, try this: Give us a compelling reason why accepting your God and going to heaven is better than being put into eternal torment by him. In what, exactly, it is better.

Comment #18733

Posted by Enough on March 1, 2005 6:18 PM (e)

Marek14: obviously the 72 virgins we get when we get there. Pay attention.

Comment #18734

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 6:20 PM (e)

God’s Word doesn’t exist to convince you in the way you are thinking it does, but it exists to convict you. It is very successful in the latter action. You see yourself as some kind of special prize that God must convince to come His way, but this is not your situation…

Comment #18735

Posted by Mike Walker on March 1, 2005 6:23 PM (e)

Steve, still not answering my questions, eh? So tell me, if I “become convicted” what will happen? Will I suddenly know all the answers to my questions, or will I just not care about them any more?

Comment #18736

Posted by Enough on March 1, 2005 6:26 PM (e)

Does anyone else picture lightning flashing and evil music playing while Steve writes his posts? Give it up Steve. No one cares. You can sit smugly in heaven while we wail in eternal torment after we all die. Or not. You don’t know.

Comment #18739

Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 1, 2005 6:45 PM (e)

Enough wrote:

Does anyone else picture lightning flashing and evil music playing while Steve writes his posts?

For quite some time I held to the theory that “Steve” was an ex-christian who was deliberately featuring all the worst things he had ever learned during his imprisonment in that dismal and futile belief system, in order thoroughly to discredit it.

At this moment, however, I begin to incline to the belief that he really does believe all of this twaddle. That’s really sad.

mdr (18 years inside, 22 years outside…)

Comment #18740

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 6:45 PM (e)

>Steve, still not answering my questions, eh?

60 atheists demanding answers to the same dumb questions. When answered I get 14 dumb responses asking if I’m ever going to answer the question(s)… This is how evolutionists behave in the halls of academia they’ve taken fascist control of. Evolutionists brag to each other after abusing the minds of their captive audience young students. Threatening reprisals if any student questions you or makes fun of you. Like homosexual priests you abuse those put in your control. Imagine that, angry, flat-Earth theory of evolution morons controlling universities… One would think the devil was having his way in these end times…

Comment #18741

Posted by Dave Thomas on March 1, 2005 6:54 PM (e)

Re comments #18724 and #18277,

What’s the Dennis Miller joke?

Actually, Miller used “apes” instead of “monkeys.” Same difference.

Here’s a recent mention:

As Dennis Miller (a non-Christian) once said. “If evolution is true, and apes evolved into human beings, why are there still apes?”

(Scroll down about half-way to the bottom, @ 04-08-2004, 09:03 AM)

Cheers, Dave

Comment #18743

Posted by Mike Walker on March 1, 2005 6:59 PM (e)

When answered…

Well that is a blatent untruth if I ever heard one. You haven’t even tried to answer them. You know that, we know that. It’s in black and white on these pages.

From the tone of his latest diatribe, I think he is getting close to the edge - perhaps we’d better stop before he blows a blood vessel in his brain.

Comment #18745

Posted by Enough on March 1, 2005 7:02 PM (e)

I’m not sure it would do any damage.

Comment #18747

Posted by Russell on March 1, 2005 7:17 PM (e)

As Dennis Miller (a non-Christian) once said. “If evolution is true, and apes evolved into human beings, why are there still apes?”

I hope this is Dennis Miller in his role as “Comedian”, and not Dennis Miller in his role as “Stupid Person”.

Comment #18750

Posted by Mark D on March 1, 2005 7:28 PM (e)

The Dennis Miller attribution is certainly false. That is from a list of trite little sayings that have been circulating the internet for years. I’ve seen it attributed to him, George Carlin, Jerry Seinfeld and a host of other comedians.

In reality, considering how unimaginative and stupid the sayings are, it was written by some bored half-wit wasting company time. It was then attributed to various famous people in an attempt to give it some sort of “credibility” as a professional bit of humor.

Miller may be conservative politically, but he’s not a total moron, which he would have to be to say such a thing.

Comment #18754

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 7:56 PM (e)

“Yeah! They’re trying to use Dennis Miller against us, but we’re on to that!!”

Can’t get anything by you atheists/evolutionists…

“The ‘theory of evolution’ is nothing more than the distracting ‘shiny object’ of each generation’s drooling morons.” - Michel de Montaigne

Comment #18756

Posted by GCT on March 1, 2005 8:19 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

The Kingdom of God is not a tyrannical regime. It’s a Kingdom. And the state and standing of Christians in that Kingdom is of adopted children of the King. Heirs of the Living God. Kings in their own right. Prophets, priests, and kings in their own right.

I’m gonna be a king!

Then, I’m gonna raise an army and take over heaven. And when I’m done, it’s gonna be a rockin’ party all the time!

Comment #18758

Posted by Steve on March 1, 2005 9:57 PM (e)

>I’m gonna be a king!

Hold on there, cowboy. Not just anybody can be a king. You have to have God’s law written on your heart…

Comment #18776

Posted by GCT on March 2, 2005 5:23 AM (e)

Steve wrote:

Hold on there, cowboy. Not just anybody can be a king. You have to have God’s law written on your heart …

Does it hurt?

Comment #18803

Posted by Ben on March 2, 2005 12:47 PM (e)

You have to have God’s law written on your heart …

More like Steve’s law masquerading as God’s law.

Comment #18813

Posted by Roger Tang on March 2, 2005 3:34 PM (e)

Steve is not nearly humble enough to be doing God’s work. Way too spiritually arrogant, trying to pass his own word off as God’s Word.

Comment #18902

Posted by DamnRight on March 3, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

Where was Steve when I needed him… I spent 40+ yrs in the Christian cult… had I been able to consider his Godly wisdom earlier in life, I would have been convinced of the stupidity of the Bible believing dogma & embraced atheism so much earlier… it took years of reading (the Bible) & listening to the self-righteous babble of Christians to be convicted of my idiotic faith in JC… Steve could have sent me running for reality a lot sooner…

Comment #18907

Posted by Hank on March 3, 2005 12:31 PM (e)

At the turn of the 20th century there were many flat-earthers that used exactly the same argument that Steve is now making. For example David Wardlaw Scott wrote “I believe the real source of Modern Astronomy to have been Satan. From his first temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden until now, his great object has been to throw discredit on the Truth of God”. Does that sound familiar Steve? I wonder Steve, why don’t you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? The Bible says it does and you don’t have any proof that it doesn’t. Or maybe you do believe the sun revolves around the earth. LOL