God for london mayor...

Off topic chat
User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Mon May 12, 2008 12:00 pm

CliveH wrote:No, you're missing the point.

No one has suggested that a monkey and zebra can produce an offspring - you have a habit of going off at tangents, particularly when you're unable to answer a simple question.

You were trying to run the argument that "nobody has ever seen an animal produce a fundamentally different kind of animal, never".

As evolution takes place over a long period of time, it's not the sort of thing we're likely to observe in our lifetimes, but I thought just one example of something that is observable might just open your blinkered eyes just a little bit - stand as close or as far away as you want - it's there for you to see.

That's the whole point Clive, if it is not observable then it doesn't fit under the definition of science, it is a religious view. Since it "can't be seen in our lifetimes"(as you put it), it has to be BELIEVED in. This is the problem with evolution. The evolutionist will tell you that all these things happened "long ago and far away" and when you present a problem with the theory they simply just add more time and say it was "longer ago and further away".

Time doesn't help the evolution theory in the slightest and no I'm not going off on a tangent as you put it. If you want to believe that in times past the bones in the dirt we find today could do something that the animals today cannot do(which is produce something other than their kind), then go ahead and enjoy yourself but you have just left science and entered into religion. Surely you can see this.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 12:04 pm

Blower - you might like to study this web-site in depth:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /index.htm

It contains many links within it to articles that nicely debunk all of the warped and heavily-manipulated pseudo-science employed by Creationists in the pursuit of their agenda to mislead the gullible.

Here's a few quotes to whet your appetite:

"Creationism and Its "Scientific Arguments":
The scientific arguments of the creationists, while nonsensical, are very intricate and detailed, and can sound very convincing to people who do not have enough scientific knowledge to make a good judgement (such as local school board members). Although the creationists have made many pseudo-scientific arguments against evolutionary science, for reasons of space we can only discuss a few of them here. The creationist failure in these areas should indicate how much credence we can give to the rest of their "science"."

"How Old is the Earth?
Perhaps the silliest argument made by the creation "scientists" is their notion that the earth is only six to ten thousand years old, and that all fossils are really the remains of the animals that drowned during Noah's Flood. . ."

"Creationist Lies and Dishonesty
Much of the creationist case is based upon intellectual dishonesty. Creationists depend heavily on quotations from evolutionary scientists and writers which they have pulled out of context and twisted to sound like something other than what the writer intended. They also depend heavily on half-truths, distortions, deliberate citation of data they know to be untrue, and outright fabrications."




The site has many articles which you'll no doubt relish reading: one should particularly interest you - clear evidence of transitional forms in evolution (and the fossils of said intermediate creatures) ...

Please read them all.

Enjoy! :D
Deus ex machina

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Mon May 12, 2008 12:24 pm

By the way Clive, this is not an obscure point, this is the evolutionist belief that animals in the past could bring forth a fundamentally different kind of animal. The stages of the animals evolving according to the evolution theory go from fish to amphibian to reptile then to mammal. I think you ought to read some textbooks and science magazines as that is exactly what is being taught in the education system and through the main stream media.

I seem to remember a certain advert for Guiness which came on quite frequently, quite clearly going through the stages of human evolution. The sequence above was what was followed. Also since you acknowledge these changes over long periods of time, you are admitting what I accuse the evolutionist of believing so how can I be making an obscure point? All I am doing is just boiling away the fluff and feathers called TIME the evolutionist likes to throw in to help his theory.

If you want to quit the debate I will quit, but I think my point has been clearly made, that evolution is a religion since none of the claims it makes can be observed, they have to be believed in. Since this is so obviously the case, why is this religion called a science? As I said to S4-Tan, it just seems like double standards are being thrown up on the part of the evolutionist.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 12:32 pm

Here's one of my favourite extracts from the site: all interested parties should read the entire site.

IS EVOLUTION THE WORK OF THE DEVIL?

by Lenny Flank


(c) 1995


"The basic argument of the creation "scientists" is that evolution is a Satanic viewpoint, placed on earth by the Devil in order to deceive good Christians and lead them away from God. Organized science, therefore, consists largely of atheists and anti-Christians who, whether through design or ignorance, are doing the work of Satan by spreading evolutionism and repressing the true Christian viewpoint of creationism.

The creationists are quite open in their belief that evolutionary theory, even theistic evolution, is, quite literally, the work of the Devil: "Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'." (Morris, 1963, p. 93) Indeed, one of the founders of the modern creationist movement, Dr. Henry Morris, has declared that evolutionary theory was given to Nimrod by Satan himself, at the Tower of Babel:


"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.

"One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75).


Thus, concludes Morris, "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself . . . Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)

And why does the modern scientific community help to spread the teaching of evolution? Because, the creationists conclude, they are atheistic agents of the Devil. John Morris, of the ICR, flatly states that "Most scientists are non-regenerate if not anti-God." (Morris, Back to Genesis, May 1995, p. 4) Creationist Jerry Bergman writes that "The atheist belief structure is the norm in science . . . The fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best nontheists for whom God is irrelevant to their daily lives and their views about the natural world and the universe." (Bergman, ICR Impact, November 1994) Henry Morris asserts, "Modern evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists have thus ruled out the idea of a personal, omnipotent, omniscient God as Creator of the universe," (Morris, Back to Genesis, March 1995) and concludes that evolutionary theory can be accepted "only if one categorically dismisses the existence of an omnipotent God." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 17) Creationists have referred to science writer Isaac Asimov as "the atheist Asimov" (Morris, Back to Genesis, March 1995), and to astronomer Carl Sagan as "blinded to the evidence that God exists" ("Please pray for Carl Sagan and others like him who, in their conceit declare, 'There is no God'."). (Vardiman, Back to Genesis, June 1995)

(In the fundamentalist creationist's mind, every area of modern society is permeated with this Satanic evolution conspiracy. Thus, after pointing out that the Book of Revelation refers to Satan as "the great dragon . . . that old serpent, called the Devil" (Revelation 12:9), Henry Morris goes on to conclude: "That old Dragon had invaded Paradise, and God had cast him out into the earth, where he continues to this day leading men and women to rebel against God and His Word . . . The New Testament word "paradise" is transliterated directly from the Greek, which in turn was taken over from the Hebrew 'pardec' (pronounced "par-dace"). It's basic meaning is 'park'. It may, therefore, be no coincidence that Hollywood's leading 'New Age' producer has chosen to fill his 'Jurassic Park' with a bestiary of revived dinosaurs. The great dragon once again symbolically is living in Paradise." (Morris, ICR Impact, "Dragons in Paradise", July 1993) Apparently, fundamentalist creationists view Steven Spielberg as a part of the international Satanic evolutionist conspiracy.

Thus, in the fundamentalist creationist's mind, the creation/evolution fight is literally a battle between cosmic Good and Evil. As creationist Paul Ellwanger puts it, "I view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces." (Attachment to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion) Henry Morris concludes, "Evolution teaches that the Bible has errors and cannot be trusted. Christians need to have their questions answered and doubts removed. Churches, seminaries and denominations need to be called back under the authority of the Book that they have been taught to doubt. That is the real message of creationism." (Morris, Acts and Facts, June 1995) "With the rise of evolution and naturalism, 'science' has become the enemy of Christianity, but true science 'declares the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1). ICR desires to return science to its proper, God-glorifying, position." (Morris, Acts and Facts, June 1995). To most people, the creationist's rantings about the Satanic origins of scientific theory can be dismissed as incredible medieval silliness, with a huge dose of paranoia thrown in. But to the creationists, it is unassailable truth. They sincerely believe themselves to be holy warriors, fighting valiantly to turn back the scientific forces of Darkness and save us all from Satan's power.

The creationist notion that they are the victims of a vast Satanic conspiracy simply cannot be taken seriously. In all of their writings, the creationists attempt to paint their viewpoint as "the" Christian view, implying both that their theological interpretations are the only reasonable ones (and all others are the work of Satan), and also that their interpretations are representative of Christianity as a whole. Neither of these assertions are true. The fundamentalist creationists and their literal interpretations of Genesis are, in fact, a tiny minority within Christianity. Every mainstream religious denomination in the United States flatly dismisses Morris's "evolution is the work of the devil" thesis.

The depth of anti-creationist sentiment among mainstream Christians was perhaps best illustrated during the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" trial. All but two of the plaintiffs who sued to have the creationist law thrown out were representatives of mainstream religious organizations and churches, including the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee, as well as the resident Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal churches, the Arkansas head of the Presbyterian Church, and individual clergy from the United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian churches. Among the witnesses who testified against creation "science" was Francisco Ayala, a Catholic Priest who holds a doctorate in genetics as well as a doctorate in theology.

And how do creationists respond to the fact that every mainstream religious organization in the United States rejects their theological views concerning evolution? By asserting that these religious organizations are themselves a part of the Satanic conspiracy. Morris writes, "First, Christian leaders compromised on the literal Genesis in terms of the geological ages and a local Flood. Very quickly, this led them to theistic evolution. Next came an errant Bible, religious liberalism, and the social gospel. Finally, there was nothing left but humanism." (Morris 1984, p. 328)

The idea that scientists (presumably aided by the non-fundamentalist Christian religious denominations and by Steven Spielberg) are engaged in a vast conspiracy to silence the creationists is not based on reality. Instead, it is a product of the creationist's paranoid and conspiratorial world-view, which sees Satan lurking behind every tree. The creationist ravings that they are being unfairly picked on is a subject more fit for psychologists than for biologists."

The last paragraph is my personal favourite ...
Deus ex machina

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 12:39 pm

....and just in case you missed it, here's a nice little article from the site detailing all of the many, many flaws and contradictions in the Genesis story ...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... nesis.html
Deus ex machina

User avatar
GardinerG
Top Gear
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Post by GardinerG » Mon May 12, 2008 12:43 pm

This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
So science is a virus? And here was me thinking it was there to help us understand the world (and universe) around us. :lol:

As a species what would we be without science? We wouldn't have art or literature without it but then the bible wouldn't exist either so I guess that's what we call a "double-edged sword".

As for Genesis, it has more holes than all my break discs put together.

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 1:03 pm

...another article that clearly shows how Creationists have shot themselves in the foot (again!) ...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /kinds.htm

.... you should like this one Blower - it centres around the theme of "kinds" (i.e. animal kinds) that you like to employ in your rejection of evolution - read it well; it shows how Creationists are very selective in their definition of "kind", and how they actually are forced to end up defining animal "kinds" by bending the biological truth out of all recognition to fit their creation myth.
Deus ex machina

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 1:40 pm

.... and another: (this one clearly proves how utterly daft the Noah story is ... after all, the poor sod was 600 years old when the flood happened you know :roll: )

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /flood.htm
Deus ex machina

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 1:59 pm

... one more that nicely demonstrates the creationists so-called "science" is entirely based on their oh-so scientific reasoning "it must be so 'cos the bible says so" ...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... orting.htm
Deus ex machina

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Mon May 12, 2008 2:08 pm

I will deal with and answer those articles later on, let me just deal with the mule issue as Mr H has accused me of not answering questions. Ok Clive, since you want to hang on to the mule so badly, lets quickly deal with the mule. From an obvious observational standpoint the mule is part of the horse family tree. Clive here I believe was stating that because the mule is infertile, therefore it cannot be of the same kind as its parents, therefore a different kind of animal has been brought forth.

The first question to ask here is: are all mules born infertile? The answer here is no. On rare occasion fertile mules are born.

The next question would be: If indeed on rare occasions mules are born which are capable of breeding, can they breed back with an original horse? The answer here is yes. It is also interesting to note that 2 mules bred will simply produce a horse, so the diversification simply reverts back to the original.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 2:10 pm

... another gem that shows the Adam&Eve story to be exactly that: a very poorly constructed, and scientifically false, story! (yes - it shows how we humans, and modern primates, descended from a common ancestor - not from a pair of naughty apple-eaters in the garden of eden!)

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... ominid.htm
Deus ex machina

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Mon May 12, 2008 2:39 pm

GardinerG wrote:
This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
So science is a virus? And here was me thinking it was there to help us understand the world (and universe) around us. :lol:

As a species what would we be without science? We wouldn't have art or literature without it but then the bible wouldn't exist either so I guess that's what we call a "double-edged sword".

As for Genesis, it has more holes than all my break discs put together.[/quote


The assumption here again is that evolution is part of science. Evolution is NOT SCIENCE because it is not demonstrable, testable and observable. I understand that because evolution has been intermingled with real science for so long, people have been cunningly deceived into accepting it as part of science which it is not. It is the same way that cars and many other things are advertised at football stadiums which have absolutely nothing to do with the sport itself.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
CliveH
Cruising
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:07 pm
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Post by CliveH » Mon May 12, 2008 3:01 pm

Blower wrote:Clive here I believe was stating that because the mule is infertile, therefore it cannot be of the same kind as its parents, therefore a different kind of animal has been brought forth.
I didn't state anything of the sort. The only word you correctly quoted from me is the word "mule". The rest is just your weird imagination. :shock: But you just go ahead answering imaginary points, rather than sticking to the key issues, which you are clearly unable to do... have fun!
Clive

S2 ABY coupe, S4 B5 saloon, S4 B6 avant
RS4 B7 phantom black saloon, mint, fully loaded, low mileage - FOR SALE!- http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... ic&t=88981
S8 D2 facelift, RS6 C5 saloon, both gone but not forgotten

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Mon May 12, 2008 4:14 pm

I will deal with and answer those articles later on
I'm really looking forward to that Blower! You yourself have already been guilty of lying about evolutionary science, ... to this effect I will quote one of your earlier posts: "evolutionists say that the earth was formed before the sun" ....as I'm sure you well know NO evolutionist (or cosmologist, astronomer, physicist, biologist etc) has EVER stated that the earth was formed before the sun (because it simply doesn't make sense!)! But you have actually said they have .... it's yet another example of creationists overtly lying and twisting the truth in a vain and pathetic attempt to prop up their failing and preposterous creationist myths and dogmas.

If you're going to address the articles I have linked for you (or "deal with them" as you prefer to say) then please deal with EACH and EVERY ONE of them - I'm fascinated to see with how you deal with all of the wealth of evidence for intermediate evolutionary forms, with the total destruction of the silly Noah/flood myth, with the crushing of the just plain daft Adam&Eve story, of how creationists have had to make ridiculous differentiation between "kinds" of animal to fit their genesis fable, and how the lies and fraudulent propoganda of the creationist has been exposed for all to see .... can't wait to see you "deal" with all of that ....!


I have two words for you Sir: "lifestyle preservation"! You are quite clearly afraid of letting common sense, rational thinking, and scientific evidence into your life for fear that it will, by necessity, render your bible and god stories (which you only cling to for some sense of moral direction - as you clearly can't accept that you are entirely responsible for your own moral leadership without the need to resort to a silly book) worthless - you seem to have an innate need to believe in the crackpot claptrap of the bible as some kind of "truth" .... and letting sense, rationality and PROVEN science in would take that away .... at last, the cat is out of the bag Blower: it is actually YOU that has the desire for "lifestyle preservation"!!!
Deus ex machina

User avatar
CliveH
Cruising
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:07 pm
Location: Yorkshire, UK

The end...??

Post by CliveH » Mon May 12, 2008 4:46 pm

AMEN! :lol:
Clive

S2 ABY coupe, S4 B5 saloon, S4 B6 avant
RS4 B7 phantom black saloon, mint, fully loaded, low mileage - FOR SALE!- http://www.rs246.com/index.php?name=PNp ... ic&t=88981
S8 D2 facelift, RS6 C5 saloon, both gone but not forgotten

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests