AW! Epistles
From Bob T 2
Abstract
Monday, 28 February 2005
Mike I have trouble with evolution as being a trustworthy theory for some various reasons.
1. Whenever you breed two dogs together you always get a dog. There is no recorded incident where two of the same species breed something else was produced.
Childish. It is known and true that two species of seagull in one part of the world is actually one species when its breeding activities are traced all around the globe. By the time the birds have bred all the way round the world they are no longer mutually fertile, and have therefore formed two distinct species.
2. In evolution, the accepted thinking is everything is getting bigger as time goes on. Ok!
No! This is one of your own typical nutty “theories” that you claim is evolution. It is not true. You are setting up straw men again.
Do you agree the elephant is the descendant of the Woolly mammoth? I believe it is. Ok, if they are related and evolution is true than why is the elephant much smaller? Should it be just as larger or if not larger?
I do not think the elephant is descended from the woolly mammoth. I do not know why you should think it is except that they look similar, and the mammoth is older. You are talking rubbish. But that is normal for you.
In relation, man remains. The tallest man every recorded was just short of 9 feet. I forget his name but he is in the Guinness book of records. Well archaeologists have found around the world groups of people 8-12 feet tall. They found them in Italy, France, and many places in the US. One particularly is Glen Rose, Texas. They have a museum there displaying what we found. IF you want the details of these sites I can give them. If evolution is true should we not be bigger than these groups of people who lived?
If your “theory” of evolution were true, maybe. But for all that, I do not believe that any ancient men were ten feet tall. The fossil “men” at Glen Rose are either not men, but ancient fossil animals, or they have been made by smaller modern men with electric drills and a lump of old rock. They are called creationists, and I notice you say that “we” found them.
3. The explosition of the Big Bang. Whenever something explodes like a bomb, many pieces are projected outward until a greater force stops it. All smaller pieces travelling are turning the same way. The big bang includes all the planets (earth, Saturn, etc. ) As you know, the earth is turning clockwise. However, if you look at some of our solar system planets some are turning the opposite way. How do you explain that? If you want the specific planets let me know my memory fails me right now.
I explain it by the law of conservation of angular momentum. I suggest you look it up in a conventional physics or applied mathematics textbook.
4. The position of the earth. The earth in relation to the earth is perfect. Do you know if we were just 1 degree to or fro the sun we would not even be able to survive. That goes for the gravitational force too. It is perfect!
Amazing! Do you know, if there had been no shit in the world there would have been no Escherichia coli. Shit is perfect for its survival.
5. Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs existed BEFORE any humans. However, scientists have found footprints of dinosaurs and humans walking in stride together. Glen Rose, Texas again.
I know, and you creationists created them with your drills and chisels. Chisellers!
6. Another is the extinction of the dinosaurs. Many people don’t believe in the flood in Genesis. I do Mike and this is why—scientists have found that there is enough water within the earth’s crust if released and combined with the oceans, it would be able to cover the whole earth up to 3 km deep. Explorers went up to Mountain Ararat in Turkey in the 1970s. They found Noah’s Ark up 17000 ft. They could only get 100 meters from it due to the snow constantly moving. However, they took pictures of it. The people who can tell you how big an object is in a picture said it was the same exact dimensions as found in the Bible. In addition, they did managed to recover a piece of wood that broke off . They examined it and found it to be around 2000 BC. People who did this was Ron Wyatt mostly. He worked with many experts like Dr. Baumgarder(a geophysicist from Los Alamos National Laboratory) & David Fasold who wrote The Ark of Noah(1988).
I can tell why you are a Christian. Have you heard the sounds of the tortured souls in hell coming up from the salt mines in Russia, or was it the volcanoes in Italy? Somewhere!
-Up on Mt Everest. They have found thousands of oysters in piles. How did they get there? I did not know shell fish climbed mountains.
How long ago had they been eaten? Maybe Noah stopped off at Everest before he finally landed at Ararat.
-Up in Alaska and the Arctic when companies have drilled for oil they have found underneath the solid ice is thousands of palm trees. Palm Trees that far north?
Perhaps they were drilling for palm oil.
-In the frozen ice they have found Wolly Mammoths standing up and with food still in their stomachs. They are fully preserved. Now if you considered them like a big piece of beef. To freeze just a pound of beef in a freezer takes about one hour. To preserve it, it would have be within 20 minutes.
Well, at least you have a genuine puzzle here, but how does the Flood explain it, little gullible one?
-the Grange Canyon-is a mile deep. The bottom is at about 4000 feet. The Colorado River comes into the Canyon at about 1700 Feet. Now the Canyon shows that water shaped it. Not only by the observation of the rocks but the canyon itself is curved like the shape of a river. Now if Water influenced it Second, we know water runs downhill than for that water to rise over 9000 Ft it would require a large amount.
You are baffling as usual. I think you are wondering how the Grand Canyon could have been cut if the river is lower than the edges of the canyon, and the answer is obvious to a child. It was not always at that low level, but has gor there by cutting through the rock over countless millions of years. It proves the world did not begin in 4000 BC.
-This is my favorite. Every ancient people group (Chinese, Vikings, Aztecs, etc.) all of them link the beginning of their civilizations back to 8 people in a boat with a flood.
Not in my mythology books, but myths of floods are worldwide. Is it hardly surprising especially just a few months after the Asian Tsunami, and considering that most civilisations must have experienced many floods of a lesser nature. Stories of a great flood are common for obvious reasons. Now why is Jesus depicted in so many churches with sun rays coming out of him? Could it be anything to do with myths of the sun god that he began as?
Mike I believe in the Bible b/c The Bible has too many things in it that make you realise it is special. Scientifically, it has many facts in it. I will give you just 5
1. the shape of the earth is circular like an egg. Isa 40:22 “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” The word is chuwg = circular
Is this something remarkable? Even in ancient times, people had the same senses that we have, and could stand on a hill or a cliff and see the world encircling them. They could therefore imagine God on His elevated throne having the same view—the circle of the earth.
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics: that in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Everything wears out as energy become less and less. Isa 51;6 “lift up your eyes to the heaven look at the earth beneath. The heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment—” (others Ps 102:25,26, Heb 1:11)
Same answer. What is remarkable about it? Entropy is the scientific word for it, but everyone can see it happening.
3. The Water Cycle Eccl 1:7 all “the streams flood in the sea but the sea is never full—” the Mississippi River dumps 518 billion galloons every 24 hours in the Gulf of Mexico. Where does it go? (in relation Eccl 11:3 and Amos 9:6, read the other 2 passages to see the full picture)
I am sorry but there is nothing impressive here. You seem to think that people 2500 years ago were idiots. They were not. They could see what was happening to rain just like you can and could write about it. It does not mean that they knew all about the water cycle. Iah/Ea was originally a water god, and these psalms will be recollections of it, if they are not just expressions of the obvious, that Nature keeps us all alive, not God.
4. Everything is composed of invisible structures that we can’t see with our eyes Heb 11:3 “Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”
The passage from Hebrews does not mean what you try to infer from it. It is trying to explain faith, and you show what the author meant in your every word. You see, through faith, a lot of things that just are not there.
5. springs of the sea. Scientist discovered hot-water vents on the floor of the oceans. Job 38:16, “the springs of the sea” These are just 5 of many I can produce. Check them out for yourself. You might be surprised!
No, I am not surprised. Only someone as credulous as you are would be surprised by these either banal observations or misinterpretations. The “springs of the sea” is a poetic metaphor and it is explained by the next part of the passage because it is a poetic Hebrew couplet. The poet says the same thing twice in different words. It is common in the Jewish scriptures because it was a poetic form. It has nothing at all to do with hot water vents. It just means in the depths of the sea.
In the area of Prophecy the Bible is full of many examples. One is Israel becoming a nation again in Isa 66:7-8 In 1948 Israel became a nation after 2500 years.
I have a different bible from you, you fraud. Mine does not say that Israel will become a nation again. In fact, the passage is a question. “Shall a nation be born at once?” You are just a liar, as I have repeatedly said all Christians are.
2nd example is the Middle East Conflict. God said in Gen 16:12 that Ishmael (the Arab race) will be conflict. He is called “a wild donkey of a man”. The Arab and the Jews are brothers but are in conflict. See Time April 4, 1988.
What makes you think that this is a prophecy? Settled people hated the Arabs at the time the book was written because they were tribes of nomads who raided towns and villages in settled areas.
3rd is all the prophecies about Jesus coming in the OT over 350. Born of a Virgin (Isa 7:14), Died by crucifixion (PS 22), born in Bethlahem (Micah 5:2), betrayed by 30 pieces of silver (Zech 11:12-13)
What you cannot understand, poor man, even though it is plain, is that these “prophecies” were written into the Jesus story to make them come true. Matthew scarcely makes any pretence about it, and the fact that the prophecies are not in all the gospels shows that different authors invented different stories. Thus the two birth narratives are quite different from each other. Moreover, you always conveniently ignore all the prophecies that envision the messiah as a warrior like king David. That was the Jewish idea of a messiah, not a man who was going to turn his other cheek, not that Christians do!
Archaeology there are many but one of the most famous is the Hittite Empire. The Bible refers to them over 40x. There was never any evidence until 1906 by Hugo Winckler a library of 10,000 clay tablets about the whole empire on it. It rivaled Egypt and Assyria at its height.
Well, you must be running out of material because you have already raised the Hittites earlier, and I have answered it. The bible knows nothing about the Hittites found in Turkey. It was a name used for people living in Palestine.
Mike I could on, but I won’t. Mike you mention that science has come a long way. I agree! Through science we have made some massive strides. We have been able to improve in the field of transportation, medicine, etc. You mentioned that Science has moved on since Darwin. “science has moved on, and so too has evolutionary theory” You right, can’t argue with you there! We agree on something, you better write this down. If the theory of evolution is changing than why is it changing? Changing to what evidence has been found? One’s theory originally can’t be proven? Mike, if a witness keeps changing their story, would you consider their story valid? Mike if the theory of evolution keeps changing than you face a problem, your foundation is not based on solid information. Secondly, do you still consider Darwin’s theory in any shape or form as a part of your foundation? If you do and evidence of what scientists find proves it wrong, than you foundation is being challenged.
It is getting tedious for me to have to keep blowing my foghorn at you when you still cannot hear, or is it will not hear? Science advances by revising its theories, as you call them. It revises them when new evidence, including new tests, show that an old hypothesis is inadequate. So, it is not at all a question of changing the story arbitrarily. It is changing the hypotheses to explain the facts better. The hypothesis has to explain all the facts, including the new ones, so the hypotheses get more and more encompassing. People used to think the sun circled the earth, but eventually the idea was shown to be utterly fantastic, not just inadequate. It was a primitive idea, and what really happens is that the earth itself rotates. No one now thinks the sun runs around after the earth, unless it is you.
Evolution, for example, was challenged in an important detail quite early on by Hugh Falconer who had the idea about evolution, more recently put forward by Gould and Eldredge, called Punctuated Evolution. So, scientific theories can be faulty for long periods in some detail, but eventually, the accumulation of evidence shows the error and it has to be corrected. That happened here. The theory of evolution was not wrong, but it was not as refined as it could have been and now is. It seems unlikely that it will be shown to be seriously in error, simply because there is so much evidence that it explains better than anything else, and particularly better than the idea of God, which explains nothing, unless God invented evolution to do His work for him. So, challenging foundations, the thing that you seem to imagine unravels evolution and science, is the very way science works. It is not hard to understand unless you are going to wilfully refuse to understand it. That is what you do.
I don’t think the name calling is necessary. The name calling reminds of being on the playground. If you are an adult than behave like one. Remember your faith’s principle. Respect all people.
Calling names? What do you mean? I describe people, that’s all. If an apple is green, am I obliged to say it is red? If someone talks like an idiot, am I supposed to say he is clever? Of course, we should all respect all people in the terrible world we live in in which religious madmen can bomb us into obliteration, but no one has to respect nonsensical opinions.
I don’t think you get it! I am not quoting isolated people who you might find in some small school in small hick town that no one has heard of. I am telling you what people who are known in the field of their profession are saying. I could quote you many more where the it would be just pages of them.
You sound to me to be quoting precisely small hick town people. I have not heard of many of the people you mention, and why do I have to keep reminding you that science is not a question of opinion, even the opinion of well known people, let alone half-witted hicks. Science has to explain things. Evolution explains a lot of things. Creationism explains nothing.
Also, Mike can you stop giving me this statement of all the evidence that supports evolution. Give me a specific example, one. Tell me who found the fossil, where, when, what did they conclude.
How many times must you be told that the evidence of evolution is not just fossils? You are determined to show why calling you a dimwit is not merely an insult but an accurate description of you.
Archaeopteryx—Also, the whole point of the archaeopteryx and dinosaur turning into Birds. The theory is: reptiles turned into Birds. Scientists are saying that we should see the change through the transitional fossils. However, the people who did the research were saying the evidence does not support the theory of reptiles turning into Birds. The point is there is no transitional fossils. If people who have gone and done the work in relation are saying Mike there is no fossils, None!, Zip, Zero, no even a indication of one. To put into your terms, this theory has no evidence to back it up. You are going on blind faith.—Question: in your opinion what did the transitional fossils looked like?
You do not get any clearer. Something is missing in this paragraph, and perhaps in your head. Listen carefully, archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil, because it has feathered wings like a bird, but unlike a bird, and like a dinosaur, it has a long tail and teeth. It is not necessarily in the main line of birds because its descendants might all have died out, but it has some characteristics of dinosaurs and some of birds. If this is not a transitional fossil to your way of thinking, then what is it, and what would be a transitional fossil that you would accept?
The comparison between birds and reptiles—Here we go again with accusations. Mike I am not trying to present some refuting theory. I am just telling what evolutionists believe. To support this theory paleontologists like Larry Martin and Feduccia were sponsored to find evidence. The evidence they found did not support it.
Well, you get more and more confused. I thought you were telling me what creationists believed. Let me remind you of a simple truth. Evolutionists believe evolution, and they believe it for a lot of good reasons. You do not believe evolution, and the best I can say about what you seem to be trying to do is that you are fishing for small differences of opinion on small points of detail that have not yet been settled by conclusive evidence. Otherwise you are quoting insane Christian believers, or odd snippets of proper scientific thought taken out of context. I have shown this to be true in what you have already said so you are discredited as a witness.
In relation, the comparison between birds and reptiles is not a trick. If the theory of birds evolving from reptiles is true than questions such as comparing them is common.
You are as clear as the Limpopo river as usual. Can I compare a bird and a reptile in some way? Birds have scales and so too do reptiles. What does that show? That God ran out of ideas and decided to make birds with scales because he could think of nothing better, or perhaps he had a box full of left over scales and wanted to use them up to be thrifty.
As for what dinosaur’s scales are made up of. Mike if you re-read you will see I am presenting what the scientists are saying. Scales and feathers are vastly different. Some people believe reptilian scales transformed into feathers. For ex. R. Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable said “feathers are modified reptilian scales’(p 113). However, the evidence does not support this either.
So you are saying that the bird evolved both scales and feathers, and they are made of different things, right? One type of cell cannot evolve into another type, you seem to be saying, right? It is obvious you are wrong because one fertilised egg forms every cell in your body by the time you are mature, the transparent cells in your aqueous humour, the soft cells in your lungs and other tissues, and the solid, hard cells in your bones or hair keratin. And all that happens in only a few months not in millions of years. Why then should it be impossible that cells can evolve their form in millions of years when they obviously and visibly do in only a few months?
Fossils in N. China:—Tell me what evidence you have found. Tell me the specific scientist. What he said?
Find out for yourself. The evidence is in the public domain. Just look. Try reading Nature or New Scientist. A lot of examples have been published in the last few years.
C14 & K-Ar methods—Mike my point is 2 so-called scientific methods come up with major differences. I think over 44 million difference is too big to overlook.
You are not the brightest button, Bob. I have explained this to you more than once.
Science Changing—You right in the sense Mike that science discovers new evidence where people have to change, alter one’s theory. For example, people use to think that the heavier the object the faster it would fall the earth. Galileo disproved that. That I agree with. However, other theories like the earth is millions of years old, birds evolved from reptiles. When the evidence people find shows that the earth is only thousands of years old, and reptiles did not evolve from Birds, one can’t just adjust it slightly but must change it completely. The theory people can’t give even a shred of evidence but they still want to call it science (fact) I trouble with that. Science and religion are the same when if someone is going to claim something as true than they must be able to back it. For ex. The Mormons use to believe that men lived to be 1000 years old on the moon. The 1st question is where is the proof? When the US went to the moon in ’69 and found no one there the Mormons quickly disclaimed that. Scientists at NASA are trying to prove their theory that life once lived on Mars. So far there is no proof. If they never find any proof, should we consider this theory still science? Is it proven science? No!
First, what is your proof that the world is only a few thousand years old? Second, what the Mormons did in your story is what all religionists do. They believe some revelation of their madman prophet until it is shown by science to be impossible, then they drop it. Third, you are showing yet again that you cannot understand science. How can anyone prove a negative. How can I prove there is no Mother Goose, or Fairy Godmother, or God? None of them exist, so there can be no evidence they do. When something does not exist, it can provide no clues that it does, can it? The clue that it does not exist is that there is no evidence for it, but you believers in Mother Goose, can always say, it is there but no one has yet found it, and there is no answer to that, except that we have looked and looked and still have found nothing. Christians like this, and keep saying “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” because it sounds very clever to them. It might be philosophically true, but a profound and perpetual absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence. The scientists studying Mars have to frame their hypothesis in a positive form to test it. They hypothesise that there is life on Mars, and then ask, what then would it do, if there were. That gives them tests, and they carry out the tests. So far they have all failed and there still seems to be no life on Mars. It might be harder to find than they thought at first, because the surface is too hostile for life. It is underground. That suggests further tests and they will be carried out. In the end, it is impossible to prove there is NO life, but when all the tests you keep trying keep failing, the conclusion will have to be that there is none. On the other hand, one good test will do to show there is life (though that will have to be positively repeated several times).
Scientists—These people I quoted are not loonies or creationists. All the institutions are public ones. Lehigh is one of the best engineering university in the US. Princeton is Ivy League and Johns Hopkins is one of the best school in the whole world for medicine. German Federal Institute of Physic and Tech is nothing to laugh at either.
And you cite a few eccentrics from them. What about all their colleagues who disagree with them. I have asked you before, why do you keep ignoring the many in favour of the few that suit your own opinion? It is not scientific. It shows that you are selecting the evidence, and that is cheating.
Both Wheeler of Princeton and Reader’s Digest are both non-Christians. Wheeler was interviewed by Reader’s Digest. Wheeler was just saying that life would ot have begun if the universe was not perfectly made. Read the article.
Who needs to read it? I have it all on my website. It is the Anthropic Principle, but you are so ignorant that you tell me what I already know because you cannot be bothered to read what I have said. It does not have anything to say about the universe being made. That is what you have slipped in.
Einstein was saying that science becomes a religion where people’s theory become scientific fact without the proper evidence. If Einstein believed in evolution than why did he said that he believed in a designer? Also, Einstein said that faith without science is blind and science without religion is lame.
Rubbish! He was saying nothing of the kind. And where did Einstein say anything about believing a designer? Einstein had no belief in any sort of anthropomorphic God. I would like to know the context of the last quotation to understand what he meant by science without religion being lame. You should note, though, that religion without science is blind.
You said that “if religion is regards as an explanation, is the modern religion, and Adelphisophism says so’ Question: how long has Adelphisophism been around?
You mean: “Science, if religion is regarded as an explanation, is the modern religion, and Adelphiasophism says so.” Adelphiasophism is new enough to accept what science finds as true, unlike Christianity which is so ancient it is full of obsolete and dangerous rubbish.
As for Dr Simpson, what a bogue accusation. You are speaking illogically. God also said to man “by the sweat of your face will you earn your food’ (Gen 3:19). So if I help a person with their work where I am just trying to help as a neighbour and they are not sweating to earn their food is that wrong? Your illustration is weak.
My illustration? I am telling you what Simpson’s contemporary Christians said about his efforts to stop the pain of childbirth. It seems you disagree with them, but then so do all Christians because Christian women do not particularly want to put up with what God condemned them to. At the time, they tried to stop him from doing it on biblical grounds, citing what I cited to you. All you serve to do is prove that Christian dogma is stupid and evil, and can be taken any way that any Christian chooses. If you had been alive at the time, you would have been with the Christian backwoodsmen, that is certain.
Troubles with Evolution— Mike the example of seagulls. You may have different types of Seagulls but regardless of what type of seagulls you have mate. What do you get? Ans. A seagull. That is not evolution.
Your ignorance is profound, mate. Seagulls come in many different species. They are not just seagulls. You are a dunce. Just a description, mate.
Mike this is not not my nutty theory “everything is getting bigger. That is well known evolution theory. In relation, many creationist believe that the woolly mammoth is related to the Elephant. How do creationist explained frozen woolly mammoths? Simple, The Month of January, if in Florida it is raining, it would turn to snow as the storm travels North like up to Canada. The answer is geography. I think you would agree it is much colder in the N. So when it rained during the flood it snowed up north. Question: how do evolutionists explain frozen wolly mammoths standing up with food still in their stomachs?
It is your evolutionary theory because it suits you, but you show you are dishonest or a dunce with every word you utter. Evolution says species adapt to their environment. They might get larger, get smaller, or not change in size at all. As for your explanation, it is risable. Where the mammoths lived, it was permanently frozen, except for a short summer season when spring flowers like buttercups could grow. In case you do not believe it, then look at the north of Canada, Greenland, Siberia or Antarctica now, and you can see how it was. The mammoths had evolved thick fur coats to cope with it. They experienced snow storms all the time and survived for thousands of years. One year some catastrophe froze them almost instantly. How was that the Flood? As for the evolutionary answer, there isn’t one. The beasts died like the dinosaurs because of a catastrophe, but since they were frozen in an instant it was not a Flood and it was not a snowstorm caused by the rain turning to snow. Their own body heat would stop instant freezing unless the cold was exceptional. The puzzle remains to be answered.
Men being over 10 ft tall. Again your accusations without any facts.—Glen Rose, Texas—what a silly accusation, Christians making the footprints with drills and chisels.—The shell fish on top of Mt. Everest. The shell fish were found sealed not emptied.—Noah’s Ark— so you can read other languages like Chinese? Even in the Chinese language the character for a boat is a combination of symbols for a vessal and eight mouths(people).
1. I do not get. YOU are saying these men were ten feet tall. 2. It is not at all silly. Selling bogus fossils is a local business. 3. If any such shells were found they were obviously fossilized. 4. I do not understand your comment, but I accept what you say about the Chinese character for a boat. So what?
New Question: Blood Clotting——Platelets play an important role in preventing the loss of blood. They clog together and plug at the opening. These proteins start a seriew of chemical reactions tha are extremely complicated (12 diff. Ones to be exact). Every step must go smoothly for a clot to form. If one step is missing, it won’t work. One famous genetic disorder is hemophilia. It results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Due to this disorder, a person with this may bleed uncontrollably even from small cuts/scrapes. If evolution is true and the 12 step process did not happen in the 1st generation(if any one of these 12 reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order) how did the species prevent from bleeding to death?
You always like to give examples like these precisely because evolution has led to such wonders. The answer is the same every time. These processes took millions of years to evolve, and when they started evolving the creatures were simple so the process you spoke of was not necessary. It began in a small way, and, like all evolutionary processes, developed stage upon stage. Each stage was an evolutionary advantage in itself to the much simpler animals at that stage, and it is precisely the building up of these stages that allows animals to evolve, contrary to your absurd ideas of how unlikely it is that it will all come together at once. Of course it is because they do not all come together at once. I do not know the details of blood clotting, but evolutionists will have an idea from studies of simpler creatures how it evolved. It seems unlikely to me that anyone will ever be sure about such complicated processes, but nor can I understand how saying God did it tells you anything worth knowing. There are Christians who think god invented evolution to save himself a big job. Why don’t you buy that?
Haeckel’s drawings—You may not use a textbook Mike but still today textbooks are being printed with his fake information in it. They are trying to present as scientific fact even though his work has been proven a fraud.
Let me do what you always do. Tell me one then. I said I would not use such a book as a textbook, and my guess is that the only textbooks you will find these drawings in, published today, apart from historical ones, as I said, are creationist books trying to make a point.
As for Nebraska man, it was founded by Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. Just off of one tooth founded, scientists started claiming that Nebraska man was some ancestor to man. It went so far as the Illustrated London News produced a sketch by Amedee Forestier of what Nebraska man supposedly looked like. However, many rejected her work. Even Harold Osborn Said “such a drawing or reconstruction would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value and undoubtedly inaccurate’
I refer you to my previous answer on this issue which you confirm in all its essentials.
Mike, this is just many examples where evolutionists have found these remains, try to make the claim that the missing link has been found. However, when all the evidence comes in, it turns out not to support evolutionists’ theory. This goes for Java Man, Lucy, Piltdown Man, etc.—In short, Mike the trouble with people who believe evolutionists is I think they assume too much and too quickly. Secondly, when evidence is brought to the light that could challenge evolutionists they don’t want to hear it.
What have you got against Lucy or Turkan Boy, both of whom are excellent examples of the transitional states you reject?
Darwin’s book—Social—My point was both Hitler and Marx were influenced by Origin of Species in how they lived their lives just like how someone who believes in the Bible. The Bible would influenced in how they would live. Hitler believed that the Jews and Blacks were more closely related to Apes than the Aryan Race(Germans). He thought by killing the Jews it would fall under Survival of the fittest.
So you say, but my understanding of it was that Hitler was brought up by his mother as a good Christian and thought it terrible that the Jews could be God’s Chosen People. He thought it should have been the Germans, and called them the Master Race, while he called the Jews Under-Men. The Under-Men had killed God and were making false claims about themselves so, Hitler decided he ought to kill them all off, and do Christianity and the German race a good turn. He had his views from Christianity when he was an alter boy, not from Darwin’s book, though I am ready to believe he might have used Darwin to back up his insane Christian ideas. He was, after all, not the first Christian who wanted to murder off the Jews for killing the Christian God. Nor was he the first Christian to go around killing people by the townful. Plenty of Christians have done that in the past.
Religion based on one Madman—As far as religion based on one madman, that is not me. The Bible is based on 40 authors from 3 different continents, 3 languages over 1500 years point to one person, Jesus. The common theme is Man should live by faith (Hebek 2:2). If you want a madman, look at the Mormons who claims the Book of Mormon talks about Jesus’ life in the USA supposely. Or about Church of Eckankar founded by Sri Harold Klemp who claimed to be God in the Flesh.—If you want to meet some weirdos go to Speaker’s Corner. I was just there last weekend.
Read my pages and you will find that all of this is wrong. Based on the evidence, of course, not on faith, but then you are keen on finding evidence that you think refutes evolution, but will be not interested at all in any evidence that shows all your dreams about the bible are wrong. Mormons are just another Christian sect. Why is yours right and theirs wrong? You are all wrong!
Other Faiths—Know some people who were brought up in church don’t believe in a higher power. I have relatives like this. This only applies to a small percent of the world population. That is in the West too.—Lets chose one faith that is known; Islam. Do you know what the 5 pillars are of Islam? Have you every been to a mosque? Had deep conversations with a muslim at any time in your life? Mike, I asked because I have. Of the many types of faiths I have mentioned I have read their book, dialogue with them personally at long lengths, heard them at dialogues, eaten with them in my own house, etc. I am not an expert but I think with more than 12 years gives me a good idea of what people’s view from these religions are.—In relation, I remember you saying that Christianity is bad for countries. Mike do you know much about Islam? Islam is the religion of the sword. If you every tried to publicized, promote, print, or pass out any literature that went again Islam in an Islamic country do you know what would happen to you? Death! I am not kidding. This goes for literature that insults their prophet Muhammed. In many Islamic countries it is illegal for people to promote a religion other than Islam. It is illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. In Islam that is called “Shirk’ b/c Muslims don’t believe Jesus is God and when one associates partners with Allah it is considered unforgiven. Thus the family has a right to kill the person.—If you think Christianity stifles people’s freedom, than check this out. If a woman is minding her own business and is raped against her will, do you know what happens to her? She is killed. No if, and, or but. Do you know what happens to the rapist(s) they just have to repent.—Islam works on fear Mike. If you don’t join them, they will kill you. Just go to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, etc. I have meet many people who were from these countries. They were dedicated Muslims and came to know Christ.
You are again laughable. I will not contradict what you are saying about Islam, after all, it is just the third of the Patriarchal religions along with Judaism and Christianity. They have common roots in Judaism. Abraham is the father of all three. So, as far as I am concerned they are all equally awful. As for the specific example you have given, that Islam is a religion of fear spread by the sword, why don’t you read a bit of Christian history? Christianity for a thousand years was worse than this. You think it is wonderful today because it has been forced by the Enlightenment to become much more free than it ever was, but your own dogmatic refusal to see the light is exactly what kept Europe in the dark for this thousand years called the dark ages and the middle ages. Did you never hear of the crusades? The Christians were just as ready to use the sword as the Moslems were, and they often used it against Christians and Jews because it was easier to kill and rob them than it was to kill and rob the Saracens. I know that you prefer to be ignorant as a Christian, but try reading a bit of real history and science instead of the baloney you get fed. Then you will at least be more honest.
Challenging My Faith— Mike earlier you said I was afraid of challenging my faith. Mike if you notice I am telling you what many non-Christian sources are saying. Can you present just one?
You are telling me what your creationist chums are telling you to say. I’ll tell you a lot. Read my pages. There are hundreds of them so there must be something there you like!
My education—Mike you don’t know me or my background. I went to public school in Baltimore, Md. I have a BA from an university called Winthrop. I went there on a scholarship. I am not against science. I have found science has made my faith stronger. Science to me is not an enemy but an allied. I don’t like when people twist evidence to fit their own theory. I believe that science supports a creator not everything happening by chance. What is your educational background?
If you do not like people twisting evidence to fit their own theory, why do you do it yourself constantly. You are blind. My background is on the pages. Why not try reading them?
Christianity and Women— Please tell me where in the Bible Jesus was rude to his mother?
Try Mk 3:33, Lk 11:28, Jn 2:4. Is that enough?
As for women in many faiths women were not given much status. Even in Islam today, if a Woman is raped against her will in an Islamic country. The Woman is killed and the rapist just has to repent. The Bible does not degrade women if you every read it. The Bible gives an order of family structure. I am married and I am head of the house. I am commanded to love and respect my wife like in Esp. 5:28 Jesus showed this to the woman at the well he was speaking to Samaritan (half jew) in John 4. Back in that day, Jews did not speak to Samaritans and a man did not even speak to a woman. Also, Jesus spoke to the prostitute woman, where they were looked down on in that day Luke 7:36-50 and still are.
Well, in case you had not noticed, women are not given much status in Christianity even today. There have been some small breakthroughs after 2000 years but there are no women in the catholic religion except those that wash church floors or dress up as nuns to adore the pope. In Protestantism, there are no women bishops in the Church of England, and only recently have there been women priests. So what has Christianity actually done for woemne in its 2000 years of existence, and, if Jesus was opening the door for women 2000 years ago why has it only just opened such a little recently, 2000 years later? You talk baloney.
You said Christianity is untrue and science has proven it untrue. Give some proof. Some specifics please!
Read the pages, please!
Facts in the Bible—Isa 40:22—when are you talking about? What time period? B/c even in the 1400’s many people still thought the earth was flat and people could fall off. Isa was written in 600 BC. Can you give me some proof, like a quote instead of an assumption.
What are you talking about? This is your own example. Are you the full shilling? Ignorant people in the middle ages might have believed in a flat earth just as ignorant people today reject science in favour of Christianity, but intelligent people did not. They have known since Greek times that the earth is a sphere. Isaiah was not written in 600 BC. Was The Last Days of Pompeii written in the last days of Pompeii? That is the level of your understanding.
2nd law—some people believe the universe is expanding but evidence many scientists have found it is the opposite. For ex. Scientists have founded out the sun is burning out. If you look at anything here on the earth you see right before your eyes. The pyramids in Egypt are very old and are slowly crumbling. The list goes on.
The universe is expanding. The sun is burning out. So what. What are you saying? It is obvious to everyone that everything is decaying. It dies. That is why your priests promise you that you will not. And you believe them and not the evidence of your eyes.
Water Cycle—so you saying they the people 2500 years ago knew the water cycle? I don’t think so.
You have gone out, poor soul! The bible does not mention the water cycle. You do. The bible mentions what is obvious to everyone whether they are watching then or today.
Heb 11;3—the chapter is about faith but the wording gives clears evidence what science tells us today that 99% of our universe is made up of elements that can’t be seen by the human eye.
Sorry, pal, it says nothing of the sort. You illustrate the point it is making. It is talking about illusions not elements.
Job 38:16—This was God talking to Job according to the Bible. Yes, the Book of Job contains a poetic form of writing. But you can still express a view/an idea/etc. Shakespeare did. People express ideas/views all the time through writing music. Just b/c it is in a poetic form does not mean it can’t express a truth.
It expresses a poetic truth but says nothing about hot thermal vents in the oceans. You cannot distinguish what the bible says from what you want it to say.
Isa 66:7—8—Accusations again Mike. If you read the whole context and not just the 1st line. The writing is make an comparison of a country being born like a mother gives birth to a child. The point is it happened; Israel becoming a nation within a day in 1948.
You are living in your own dream world. The passages say nothing about Israel in 1948, and it certainly did not take just one day for the modern Israel to be born. Since it was born of Jews displaced by Hitler’s insanity, it started in 1933, 15 years before at a minimum. I do not know where you get all this rubbish from, but you want to start doing a bit of reading of your own, and a bit of using your own critical faculties, if you have any left after all that Christian flim-flam.
Gen 16:12—The Arabs did not exist in 2000 BC. No ancient text, resource confirms this. The Canaanites lived in Abraham’s time. They were not nomads who raided towns and villages.
How do you know the Arabs did not exist in 2000 BC? Anyway what has it to do with my reply. I said the Arabs were raiding villages when the book was written—not before 500 BC.
Prophecies of Jesus—sorry Mike, like your science it is not the most solid. You forgot the dead sea scrolls. Every Book of the Bible in the OT , we have in hand manuscripts that go back more than 200 years before Jesus’ birth. I have read your website on the dead seascrolls and I was not impressed.
You are uncomprehending that is why. What have the Dead Sea Scrolls to do with what you are saying? The only ones you can mean are versions of the Jewish scriptures with the same prophecies as you read yourself in the so-called Old Testamant. Whoever the men were who wrote the gospels after Mark made a point of including prophetic fulfilments. Matthew is perhaps the most blatent. As for my pages on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I suggest you read them again. This time try to understand what they are telling you.
Hittites—sorry Mike I am not running out of material. I have just given you a small portion I could produce. You said it is not the same Hittites found in Turkey. How big do you think was the Hittite empire? It went from today was know as Lebonon/Syria border it started. Go N and than hang a left going to Europe. So basically it went through Syria well into Turkey up to the Pointine Mountains over to Mukara. Their empire boarded with the Empire of Thutmose III c. 1468 BC. So you and I are talking about the same people.
My answer is the same. The bible says nothing about a Hittite empire. It speaks only about certain people in the Levant called Hittites. I agreed they were called Hittites because of the Hittites that you refer to. In other words part of this area once was in the Hittite empire, but all of that had been forgotten, and all that remained was the name. Check the whole thing out in any decent bible dictionary such as Lutterworth’s. I do not want to get into futile fights with you of my own making. You already give me plenty of those. The mention of the Hittites shows that when the book was written there were people still called Hittites in the Levant. It was, however, long after the Hittite empire had dispappeared.
Here is a new one Mike. In Isa 2 it says that Jerusalem will be very important in the last days. Read it.
So, are we in the last days? Have you got a sandwich board with “The Last Days are Nigh” written on them? Jerusalem has been very important for the last 2500 years. When will the last days come? Why have they not come already if Jerusalem has been important all that time?
Mike I think you have to do some more accurate research on your history, etc.
Have you got a plank in your eye, chum?
The bottom line is Mike I hear a person who has been burnt by church people. A person with a hurt background filled with frustration and anger. I read your testimony of your father dragging you to church. I can relate b/c I had bad relationship with my dad for many years. It lead to hatred towards him. I had to forgive him and I did when I became a Christian even though he is not. My dad is almost 80 years old and is from the old school. He served in WWII and being the youngest of 8 kids where I am not even 40 there is a major gap. I learned Christianity is not about a ritual but a relationship. Jesus died for you Mike & me b/c he loved us.
Believe it, if you must, but you are deluded. Jesus had not the least inkling of you or me when he died. He died fighting the Romans as a Jewish rebel. As for the rest, you again show you are out of touch with reality. I said nothing about my father dragging me to church. He did not. I am sorry to hear you had a bad time with your father, but not me. I did not like going to church, but it was the schoolmasters who made me because I was at an Anglican school. I do not suppose that they enjoyed it either. They had to do it. It was part of their job. None of this made me hate Christianity because after that Christianity scarcely impacted on my existence. I was notionally a Christian, as I no doubt still am, as far as the Anglican records are concermed. I shall repeat again to you what I have said to all you amateur Christian psychiatrists. I write about Christianity with derision because I have found it so, by studying it without anyone forcing me to think how they want me to. It is quite easy. What I found was utterly disgusting and cannot possibly be part of any good God’s plan. Why? because Christianity is a wicked, muderous scam. A study of it proves it, and the fact that some individuals who are happy to call themselves Christians are actiually good does not relieve the whole institution from its history of burnt flesh and misery. It is too deep seated just to be accidental. It really is a monstrous belief at the core.
"But God demonstrated his own love for us in this; while we were still sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)
And thereafter the Christian institutions have spent 2000 years killing people in revenge. Some sort of love that was.
Just like all evolutionists Mike all you do is say Evolution is science and creation is a fraud. The bottom line can’t prove evolution, can’t prove nothing. All evolution is a theory. You go around in circles. Blowing smoke by calling people who oppose your view as stupid, etc. I hear so many people like you. Like last week down at Speaker’s Corner.
You are projecting your own faults again. You are the one who goes around in circles. I have explained the scientific method to you several times with extreme simplicity but you keep going on as though you cannot understand it. Can you? You keep repeating your mantra that evolution is a theory as if it means evolution is a lie. Science is a mass of hypotheses which are constantly being tested in use and by observation, as I have told you often. Evolution is one of them. You say evolution cannot be proved, even though you cannot prove creation or God, but you believe both unquestioningly because you are a religious fanatic unresponsive to reason. You say I call you stupid though you prove you are stupid by your inability to understand simple explanations, like the way you keep calling the theory of evolution “just a theory”, and so on, as if it were something devastating to science. Let us be grateful we have speakers corner. If Blair has anything to do with it, no one will be able to criticize any religion.
Just listening to you Mike makes me laugh. Your knowledge of Science is limited. Omit it! If you read the bible passages of the water cycle you would understand but since your science is limited than you don’t.
I am sure you are right, bro Bob, that my knowledge of science is indeed limited. After all, I do not claim to have the almighty correcting me, but considering you think you have, you are not giving omnipotence and omniscience a good name.
In relation about the ex. of blood clotting, it does not dawn on you this process is very complex. Evolution says species take millions of years to evolve. With this complex system the species would bleed to death. Which means the end of the species.
You are not reading too closely again. A single celled creature has no blood system. It takes a lot of evolution into multi-celled animals before any rudimentary blood system arises. Since there is no blood system in the whole of this time, the species cannot bleed to death, but the biochemical reactions that will be the building blocks of blood clotting are evolving. Your rebuttal of clotting is therefore idiotic. While the systems are evolving there can be no question of them failing as they do when they are fully evolved. You simply refuse to contemplate the process of evolution. You can only conceive, it seems, of species fully formed as you see them. Whether that is the cause or the result of your persistence in believing in a once and for all creation, I do not know, but it shows you are lacking in something.
I did not say birds evolved from reptiles. I was quoting you what some evolutionist believe by stating what they have said. IF you read all I have presented you will see that I was stating the evidence founded by evolutionists does not support this theory. The theory is still not proven.
If you are taking dinosaurs to be reptiles, then let me say (yawn) for the umpteenth time that the archaeopteryx is the transitional fossil (or one of them) you keep refusing to believe in. It suggests that dinosaurs with long tails and teeth evolved into birds which do not have these features but have wings and feathers. The archaopteryx has a long tail, teeth, wings and feathers. It is transitional. This is one piece of a large amount of evidence that adds up to an irrefutable case for evolution. I will again remind you though, since you have a tiny memory span, that fossils are far from being the most important evidence. DNA shows exactly why evolution happens and so that is the main evidence for it.
There are different species of seagulls Mike you still are classified as seagulls. Nothing different
Species are different! I am saying there are different species of seagulls but you are saying there are just seagulls. You wrote, “regardless of what type of seagulls you have mate. What do you get? Ans. A seagull”. Different species of seagulls are different animals. They are not just seagulls. Different species of seagulls cannot interbreed. In this case what appears to be two species at one end of their range is found to breed continuously round the globe. How can that be unless a bird slowly extended its range round the globe until it met the descendents of those who stayed at home when it had encircled it, and by that time, the birds had evolved sufficiently to have differentiated—they were now two species. It is a direct example of evolution.
You have never heard of the people I have quoted, maybe you should go and read.
I have repeatedly said, but you cannot understand words, that science is not a question of authority, but if it were, most of the people you cite would not be considered authorities. I also repeat that you are taking the words of some respectable scientists out of context, a typically dishonest ploy Christians use.
So if they never find life on Mars will you classified it as science(proven)? Or just a theory?
Do you understand your own language? Science cannot prove anything. It seeks to disprove them. I have told you this in monosyllables. Until life is found on Mars, science holds the view that there is no life there. Isn’t that simple enough for you. Do Christians believe there is life on Mars? They believe God exists in nothing at all.
If you classified is as a theory should someone say it is science?
Dear me! You really are still in the first grade. There is life on Mars is a hypothesis stated positively so that it can be tested, not because it is a “theory” in the sense you like to use it in. So far all the tests have failed and so science declares there is no life on Mars. Get it? or will I say it again but twice as slowly?
The same thing goes for your history. The Bible is the only ancient source that mentions the Hittites. As for Jesus, you forget secular Roman history confirms his existence, where he was born, etc.
I have explained the Hittites to you, and told you where to look for confirmation. I have not denied that it mentions the Hittites and the meaning of the word was not understood because other ancient sources called them by other names like the Hatti. The Hittites in the bible means Syrians. Where does secular Roman history tell me about the birth of Jesus?
Read the Bible verses of supposely Jesus being rude. Stop scissor cutting!
I gave you three instances from the bible. I cited them as chapters and verses just as you do. How else am I to cite them? You know that your man was being as rude as it is possible to be to his own mother. That is why you have no answer.
The bottom line is Mike all your accusations about the Bible being corrupted and Jesus is not God is nothing new. All different faiths, views, etc. have said the same thing for years but after looking at all the evidence they see they are wrong. A good example is Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. He was an atheist who tried to disprove Christianity.
If you think he is an atheist trying to disprove Christianity, you surely cannot read. All Christian fanatics like to say they were this but are now that. Frank Morrison was another fraud of the same kind. You are citing examples of Christian deceit.
If you think your view is accurate and scientific than lets have a debate. Are you coming up to Birmingham or near? ARe you gain?
I thought we were having a debate. I can read your words, though I accept you are having trouble understanding what I say, even though it is given in Basic English. Should I be drawing you pictures?
In your previous letter you said the Hittites in the Bible were not the ones found in Turkey. NOw you said they don’t mention the Hittite empire. The point is the Bible is the only ancient source that acknowledges them as a people group that lived. How long do you think they existed for? According to your sources?
The bible is the only ancient source that mentions the Hittites because other sources call them by a different name. The Hittites of the bible were Aramaeans. Ancient people contemporary with the Hittites seemed to call them Hatti. I do not really get what point you are making in respect of the mention of the Hittites in the bible. It must be meant to show that the bible is supernaturally accurate in its historical information. It is not, but your treatment of this issue, if this is your point, illustrates your whole treatment of evolution. You find one fact you can accept and set it against a plethora of facts that contradict it. One fact shows the bible is preternaturally accurate, you think, but a host of errors show the opposite—it is inaccurate over many, many things. One or two supposed authorities deny evolution but hosts of scientists have produced myriads of pages supporting it. You simply ignore what does not suit you in an utterly blatant way. Since you are evidently not joking, it shows that you are not all there.
In regards to the Grand Canyon I think you missed my point. The Canyon scientists have agreed was made by a large amount of water. The Colorado River is only 1700 feet high. So if the canyon was made by a large amount of water and the Colorado had to rise over 9000 feet then where did it come from? Where did it go?
I cannot believe this is a serious question. If it is meant to be, it is further prove of your mental deficiencies. Canyons are carved out over millions of years by the river flowing over the rocks. There need not be any vast amount of water all at once as you imagine from your moronic Flood theory. An ordinary river flowing for a very long time erodes the rock. One can imagine this water flowing down from the nearby high mountains as meltwater on to a 9000 feet high plateau and gradually cutting through it until it got where it is. More likely perhaps is that the plateau was being pushed up at the same time as the river was wearing its way through it. Either way, the river is now where it is with respect to the top of the plateau. I am sure that geologists can give the details if you care to read them, although I notice that you have infected the local tourist information shops with your absurd ideas, and creationist accounts of the Grand Canyon are being sold merely because they make a profit, not because tourists should be properly informed.
In regards to Lucy, just like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc. none of these famous discoveries support the theory Man came from Ape. So the Theory: Man came from Apes still lacks evidence.
This is just contradiction, my friend. I contradict your contradiction. Since Lucy is neither a modern human nor a modern ape, then what is she? She has the characteristics you want in a transitional fossil, some human characteristics and some ape-like characteristics. Maybe the bible has not told us that God made a lot of mistakes trying to make human beings before he hit on the right formula.
Question if evolution is true than why do we still have apes? Would not that have been eliminated by now?.
There is nothing in evolution that says it MUST be accompanied by extinction. Very often evolution progresses most rapidly when some individuals of a species are isolated from the main group of them, and then they evolve rapidly in their narrow environment. Both the original and the evolved species survive commonly. Why don’t you just read a book about evolution.
Darwin said for evolution to be true many of thousands of these types of fossils would have to be found. AS of 2005, the fossil record does not even have one transitional fossi.
You keep chanting this in your imbicilic mantra, as if by saying it over and over again it will come true. I suppose that is what you do every time you go to church and repeat the same liturgy over and over and over again… zzz. The fossils you want are there. You simply refuse to look. Too bad for you. Maybe you should pray for a miracle to cure your blindness.
Seagulls—there are many different kinds of seagulls in the world just there are many different kinds of dogs. The point is regardless of what seagulls mate together you still get a seagull just like a dog and a dog = a dog.
Different species cannot mate together, poor simpleton. It is another thing I have said to you repeatedly but you do not notice. Do Christians keep going to church because they have forgotten they only went yesterday?
Like a building Mike, every point of view has a foundation. Forget about Noah’s ark, Moses, etc. If you want to prove Christianity is a joke to me than all you have to disprove is this: the Resurrection. Like Paul said in I Cor 15, if Christ has not risen than our faith is invalid.
Christ has not risen! Dead men do not walk except in fiction. Your faith is invalid. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, Solomon are all Jewish myths. They do not exist in recorded history. They only exist in the Jewish scriptures. They are the Jewish equivalents of Achilles, Aeneas, King Arthur, Robin Hood and all the other mythical heroes that people in the world invent. But you think these particular ones and none of the others are historical. It is you who are unreasonable in being ready to believe myths and disbelieve established explanations of history and Nature.
AS for evolution it all goes all the way back to “the soup” where life supposely came from. Question: where did that soup come from? how long did it exist before life came from it?
The soup to which you refer came from the same place as the atoms that make you up. They came from the stars. As the earth cooled down, the condensation of water over millions of years washed these molecules out into puddles, ponds, rivers and lakes, just as it does today. Natural reactions catalysed by earths and natural energies like lightning and geysers, brewed up the soup making polymeric molecules. This was the primaeval soup from which life emerged or was seeded from space. If the latter, the beginning of life was in a similar soup but somewhere else. Scientists are getting to understand about the constituents of simple life forms, and it is not impossible that they will be able to make it. They already have made molecules that will reproduce themselves when they are put into a suitable primaeval soup. So perhaps there was a creator of our type of life somewhere else in the universe, but ultimately life must have begun in a soup somewhere.
Now you tell me what created God.
I have been busy with other things.
I wondered what had happened to you.
I read your responses. Mike it is obvious what your thinking is—Whatever you proclaim is true, and whatever I proclaim is false regardless of what evidence I bring forth. So in the end no matter what, you refuse to look at the facts.
You are projecting again. How do you differ from that?
As far as the so-call soup which I asked where life came from according to your point of view You said it came from the stars,etc. To be more precise for you, that soup that was somewhere did it always exist? Where did it come from?
No one knows how life began, not even the most devout Christian. The primaeval soup is a mixture of chemicals—hypothesised by scientists—leached out of the rocks and absorbed from the air and made by reactions from lightning and UV acting on the air and the oceans in which reproducing chemicals formed and evolution began. Some chemicals are called catalysts and they help reactions to happen that otherwise might not. Some of the chemicals in the primaeval soup were catalysts. The catalysis might have happened only on the surface of crystals or clays or glasses. No one knows, but we know life is here and it must have started somewhere, unless it is eternal. Is God alive or is He just an inert mass of nothing? Presumably Christians consider God to be alive. How then do Christians say life began? When we say life began in a primaeval soup, we are actually talking about the beginning of life, however imperfectly. But when you say, as you Christians do, that God made everything, then you are saying nothing about how life began, because you begin with God who you already think is alive. If you want to know where the primaeval soup came from in the scientific explanation, then I want to know where God came from in the Christian one.
You mentioned scientists have been able to create molecules to duplicate. Scientists creating = an intellectence source doing something. They have not been able to do is create life which is more complex. No scientific attempt has been successful and so far(2005) they still can't.
Yes, we are showing that intelligence is working out how to create life. I do not doubt that an almighty intelligence such as you imagine God to be could make life, but, even if I think there is a God, my belief in Him does not explain how life began, as I have just explained to you. I still do not know how God came to be. By saying that God created life, you are just deferring the question from life on earth to an already living God. Then you criticize science for not having made life as we know it, and that only 300 years or so after modern science began. No doubt you think the world is only 6000 years old. OK, so God waited 4000 years before He sent His only son to save the world. God is almighty but still could not save the world for 4000 years. Human beings are not almighty, and everything they do takes time, but science has gone from travelling at the maximum speed of a horse to space travel in less than 300 years, and in the last few years has been discovering how all life, including human beings are made. If you think that God is eternal, then it took God an eternity to make life, but human beings have only taken a few years to make replicating molecules. God suddenly begins to look a bit slow at His job.
Now if intellence has been unable and you believe life just happened by chance, congradulations you have some real faith in the unknown.
Perhaps we all need a certain amount of faith. Godel's theorem suggests that no system of beliefs can be self-contained. If that is so, it is a question then of what you begin by having faith in. I can place my faith in a happy giant in the sky who has made everything that puzzles me, or I can try to work out rational ways in which these puzzles came about. In the second case, I perhaps assume that the world is reasonable, but at least I am not assuming the answer, as I do by believing some supernatural daddy that does everything that seems difficult to me. You believe in the daddy that answers nothing. I would rather have faith in the unknown, the presently unknown, but knowable answers to the questions.
