Creation

[Oleg Bach]

So the Great Itself did it.

Was Mother Nature there or did she came later?

Mother nature or nature is the very concept of sin.. There are laws of nature that counter act the destructive effects of itself. The laws are called going with the flow - or the concept of righteousness. There is an unimpeded flow in the universe...if you go against it or you go left (sinister) you will clash and collide with objects that are moving in the right direction. Look at most of nature from our perspective looking up...even vines move in a righteous pattern.

While looking at a corn field one day I wondered as I watch the thing regenerate itself through having sex with itself - pollenation etc...I came to the idea that all of nature consists of being in a state of sin..but not completely. To generate more life you must sometimes go against the flow. So it is a case of stewardship over nature that allows us to have some super natural power. Did nature come later you ask? I would assume that it always existed but man through his limited and arrogant knowledge altered it. This may have been the fall from super natural grace to a condition of sin...put in plain language...we with free will were given a choice of course...we may have taken the wrong path.

Nature can sustain human life when in harmony with it - It will destroy human life and itself when disrupted. As I said before - nature is a strange mix of sin and grace. If we follow certain ancient laws we will fair more like happy immortals - but because we are also nature itself..we will never achieve perfect glory while in natural form. It's a cruel cosmic joke that we are made inefficent...we do not use energy fully - there is always waste. Hence - we consume and we crap - the saddest joke that God played on us can be seen when we look back and down into the toilet every morning.....I often wonder - what the hell is all that about? LOL>

[Oleg Bach]

The "Great ITself" might be a fitting term. Something that has always existed. Personally I believe that our existance is like a huge contracting and then expanding vibration...we are but a thought wave in the mind of some huge entity that some call GOD. It may be a cycle...of existance to non-existance that takes place over an immeasurable distance of time.

No matter how one theorizes, whether through science or faith - this thing we exist in is a stunning miracle...It is both astounding and bizzare. Just a peek through the Hubble telescope give a hint the ever lasting glory of it all. If one strives to be good or god...one will thrive. Religion has become the great blocker and seperation of mankind and God. You can not propose this idea to a religious person because it is instituted thought created by man - usually to oppress mankind..IF this place is a heaven then the line "There are violent men that try to take heaven by force" makes sense.

It is religion that creates the classic atheist - not God. Atheists are repelled not by God but by the instituted and established trickery of humans through religion - The teachings of Christ were taken and twisted into a religion. As a young man suggest to me that I was an atheist..I pondered that briefly - I suppose in the formal sense I am - It seems that perhaps intelligent atheists are actually the last true believers in God whether they know that or not.

[Oleg Bach]

Lastly: To para phrase..."There are those that do not enter into the kingdom of heaven and stop others from doing so" - This ancient declaration is also key. People that suggest that "on earth as it is in heaven" can not be achieved in this earthly realm...I believe that the Christ figure was suggesting that heaven can be brought to earth and earth can be brought to heaven...BUT some people simply do not want to give up earthly power in order to achieve heavenly power. These people are those that are in eccense in rebellion against themselves. This is also a great fall from the art of optimal living. This place has people in it that are pricks as was said by Dante`..."I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" - What an insane concept that some have - To live a lower quality of life and have power over a shit hole than climb to a higher quality of life by reliquishing earthly power. I for one would rather be a servant in a pleasant place than king of some suffering shit whole - It is not a wise decision to become LORD OF THE FLYS.....Or king of a compost heap.

[Saipan]

There are laws of nature

Created by The Itself?

[betsy]

Actually I wrote one post in response to someone that asked, warning them that this is a very low quality thread thats pretty much devoid of any substance.

Yeah, one post....and I found it funny! The way you swooped in there "warning" BC against reading and finding out for herself what it's all about. It's not as if she was adviced to read from the very beginning. Heck, it was only a matter of scrolling two pages back.

You sounded more like trying to do some "damage control"...trying to put a lid on something.

And that to you = "frantically waving flags to steer people away".

Yeah...you're like saying "shooo. Nothing to see here folks. Go away. Don't look. There's nothing here." And all this time, you can't keep away.

I thought I performed a valuable public service! At no charge.

No. It's more like you've been shut up by these!

With these rebuttals from Camp,

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

Copyright 2002 by Ashby L. Camp. All rights reserved.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

....and this scathing rebuke from Luskin....

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

And.....these two latest news....

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

29 Evidences definitely went....pffffffffft.

You've got nothing to refute them with! You ran out of ammo....

Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Yeah, one post....and I found it funny! The way you swooped in there "warning" BC against reading and finding out for herself what it's all about. It's not as if she was adviced to read from the very beginning. Heck, it was only a matter of scrolling two pages back.

You sounded more like trying to do some "damage control"...trying to put a lid on something.

Yeah...you're like saying "shooo. Nothing to see here folks. Go away. Don't look. There's nothing here." And all this time, you can't keep away.

No. It's more like you've been shut up by these!

You've got nothing to refute them with! You ran out of ammo....

Now there is ammo involved...sounds like a cosmic war is about to take place....let me put on my halo for protection.

[betsy]

Because even if you debunked every last detail about evolution (you haven't), you still would not have proven Intelligent Design.

You keep giving that answer. It doesn't jell, therefore either you're still not reading....or you don't get it. Let's try again:

Here is what a pro-Intelligent Design explained.

Before going any further, I must make it clear that intelligent design (ID) is certainly not incompatible with common ancestry. ID refers to the mechanism of change, and does not claim that species are necessarily unrelated. So ID grants that it's possible that all living species shared a common ancestor, but ID doesn't require it. In fact, ID leaves multiple options open, which will be discussed in my next post.

In contrast, neo-Darwinism is inextricably wedded to common ancestry and requires a common ancestor (or common gene pool) for all living organisms. That's why neo-Darwinists must defend UCA at all costs

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Did you see this part?

I must make it clear that intelligent design (ID) is certainly not incompatible with common ancestry.

So ID grants that it's possible that all living species shared a common ancestor,

Intelligent Design is not throwing out the possibility of evolution. Therefore, it is not totally opposed to that possibility of common ancestry.

but ID doesn't require it.

This is where it differs with Neo-Darwinism. ID grants the possibility of common ancestry, but it does not require it! It's not written in stone that it is the only answer! If the evidence shows it, then it is accepted....but if it's not, then they don't have to accept it!

In fact, ID leaves multiple options open,

Pro-ID is not stuck in a tiny box. They're not forced to desperately try to fit anything into that box just so to show evidence for evolution. They're open-minded to seek out other options - hypotheses/theories!

Another major thing to remember, Neo-Darwinism is stumped. It had reached its dead-end.

Whereas the answer to origin seems to be pointed towards Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is proving to be valid.

Let me re-phrase the question to make it clearer:

If the theory of Intelligent Design is not incompatible with evolution -therefore you're not really throwing out your favored theory - why couldn't you accept it, considering it is not a dead-end theory?

Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Now there is ammo involved...sounds like a cosmic war is about to take place....let me put on my halo for protection.

[cybercoma]

I find the most idiotic thing that betsy does is not the 600pt bold font or the army of smilies, but how she will take a single dissenting "scientific" opinion as an absolute fact if it matches her beliefs, but completely ignores the mountain of research and data that contradicts her beliefs. And to top it off, thinks somehow that a single dissenting opinion about some minute evolutionary detail not only overturns the entire concept of evolution, but actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is real.

Edited July 5, 2011 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

I find the most idiotic thing that betsy does is not the 600pt bold font or the army of smilies, but how she will take a single dissenting "scientific" opinion as an absolute fact if it matches her beliefs, but completely ignores the mountain of research and data that contradicts her beliefs. And to top it off, thinks somehow that a single dissenting opinion about some minute evolutionary detail not only overturns the entire concept of evolution, but actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is real.

Yup...it's almost like the Richard Dawkins-Wendy Wright interview if you haven't had the pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+wendy+wright&aq=0&oq=dawkins+we

[betsy]

I find the most idiotic thing that betsy does is not the 600pt bold font or the army of smilies, but how she will take a single dissenting "scientific" opinion as an absolute fact if it matches her beliefs, but completely ignores the mountain of research and data that contradicts her beliefs. And to top it off, thinks somehow that a single dissenting opinion about some minute evolutionary detail not only overturns the entire concept of evolution, but actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is real.

Who neatly fits the profile of an idiot? I wouldn't go there, if I were you.

but how she will take a single dissenting "scientific" opinion as an absolute fact if it matches her beliefs,

By that "single" dissenting scientific fact - for there are really many - you must mean the latest article(s) quoted above:

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument!http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

or did you mean this?

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”by Ashby Camphttp://www.trueorigi.../theobald1a.asp

or this?

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

or this?

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Yes, ID happens to match my belief - or some of it.

What I believe is not the point. You're missing the target again....or you fail to grasp the thrust of the argument.

It is a straight, bold scientific claim, don't you think so? Like a stake that drives through the heart of evolution....a coup de grace. It's a hit, execution-style.

An annihiliating seismic claim like this should generate a flurry of protests from the science community, followed by refutations, one after another.

So far, it's ominously silent from the evolution front. Not even a peep.

Not a single source of refutation had been produced to counter that claim.

And to top it off, thinks somehow that a single dissenting opinion about some minute evolutionary detail not only overturns the entire concept of evolution, but actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is real.

You seem to just look at what's directly printed in front of you at the moment. You can't seem to read beyond that, and cannot retain other related highly-significant information that's been given before.

It's not only a single dissenting one. Numerous opinion. From various areas of science. Cosmology included.

Why do you think scientists are so baffled by the FINE-TUNED universe?

The ID theory actually prompted a famous atheist - Anthony Flew - to change his faith from atheist to deist!

Attempt to desperately sweep all details, (whether small or big) that tend to come together in support of the theory of ID, under the rug is being close-minded. You prefer to stay inside that dark box - your "haven" away from anything that might suggest or even hint at the possibility of a god.

That attitude only shows how your belief in evolution is based purely on faith, and only faith alone.

Well, by the looks of it....there is no safety in that box. If you won't knock those walls down, someone will do it for you.

Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Yup...it's almost like the Richard Dawkins-Wendy Wright interview if you haven't had the pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+wendy+wright&aq=0&oq=dawkins+we

Yeah, I think that's the video that was initially referred by Dre....and gave me the idea for the topic Video Debates.

That's one of the glaring criticisms and contradictions about Dawkins. His excuse for refusing to bravely face Craig. He claims he doesn't want to debate creationists (?) and amateurs.......and yet here he is, against Wright. Whom he obviously underestimated.

Considering how Wendy Wright managed to rattle him, I could only guess how it must be in his shoes just thinking about a one-on-one with Craig. He must be having nightmares about it!

Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Yup...it's almost like the Richard Dawkins-Wendy Wright interview if you haven't had the pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+wendy+wright&aq=0&oq=dawkins+we

While it's well and good to hear your take about me....how about bravely facing the question presented? With the possibilities presented by ID - that is not incompatible with common ancestry - one would think that's it's only rational to consider it as an alternative to a deadwood.

I sure want to know what reason lies behind your clinging embrace to evolution.

So let's read your own answer.

If the theory of Intelligent Design is not incompatible with evolution -therefore you're not really throwing out your favored theory just like that - why couldn't you accept it, considering it is not a dead-end theory?

Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, ffs!

[Shakeyhands]

and yet here he is, against Wright. Whom he obviously underestimated.

Considering how Wendy Wright managed to rattle him,

Ummm... did you actually watch the video? The only underestimation that he made was assuming he could have an intelligent conversation with this woman. There was no rattling accomplished Dear.

I applaud you conviction to an extent, though I have to say that it's beginnng to sound like a broken record.

Here, I'll net this all out for you. Believe what you wish, no need to change... nor is there any need to attack (or even try to refute) what others may or may not believe in.

Boy, the world would be a nicer place if more people did that.

[Oleg Bach]

Wonder if there is such a thing as de-creation or de-evolution?

[Saipan]

Yes, in Cuba and North Korea.

[Saipan]

Boy, the world would be a nicer place if more people did that.

Very difficult considering all the evil perpetrated by Atheists.

[betsy]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, ffs!

That answer doesn't jell! Like a toddler, you insist on fitting a square into a circle.

THERE NEVER WAS ANY CLEAR

EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION.

AT ANY TIME!

Your reason

FURTHERMORE, YOUR EVOLUTION HAS JUST BEEN RECENTLY DECAPITATED. ITS BEST ARGUMENT, LOPPED OFF BY SCIENCE!

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

Pulling a Dawkins doesn't work anymore. Your messiah cannot help you....he's busy ducking while doing his chicken dance.

Edited July 6, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Ummm... did you actually watch the video? The only underestimation that he made was assuming he could have an intelligent conversation with this woman.

What intelligent "conversation?" That was no "conversation!" That was a debate - disguised as a

so-called "interview!" You know why?

Because Dawkins said he didn't want to debate any creationists!

Dawkins was trying to weasel out of his own edict! He is sleazy!

He thought debating Wright would come out so easy! To use her as another pom-pom to cheer up atheists - since there's certainly nothing to brighten up their day after a century of waiting for that single clear evidence of evolution!

There was no rattling accomplished Dear.

I love his rapid eye-batting!

He was the first one to throw in an insult! Like the kind you read in a forum!

His body language couldn't hide it! <sing song> He was fuuuurrriiooooouuuus.

I applaud you conviction

Because I know I'm right. And you are wrong.

to an extent, though I have to say that it's beginnng to sound like a broken record.

Because you know I'm right. And you've got nothing to refute it.

Here, I'll net this all out for you. Believe what you wish, no need to change... nor is there any need to attack (or even try to refute) what others may or may not believe in.

Heck, you should go to Dawkins site and tell Dawkins that! And while you're at it, please pass this meassge for me, hon:

Hey yo, Dawkins,

How's your church of faith-bashers going now? Come out...come out and face Craig already. Defend your doctrine...or go back to your lab and discover something else! Prove that the rumours ain't true that your seat was just bought for you.

Concentrate on getting your first Nobel!

Boy, the world would be a nicer place if more people did that.

If they stop telling lies, twisting truths and starting fights.

Edited July 6, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Very difficult considering all the evil perpetrated by Atheists.

Atheists are just people who have not formally given God a title. Everyone believes....atheists simply don't like liars that attempt to dellude and control others - they are spiritual and close to God - but really don't appreciate fabricated religion.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, in Cuba and North Korea.

Yah the Cubans have rust free cars that are 50 years old in a rapid state of de-creation.

[cybercoma]

That answer doesn't jell! Like a toddler, you insist on fitting a square into a circle.

THERE NEVER WAS ANY CLEAR

EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION.

AT ANY TIME!

Your reason

FURTHERMORE, YOUR EVOLUTION HAS JUST BEEN RECENTLY DECAPITATED. ITS BEST ARGUMENT, LOPPED OFF BY SCIENCE!

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

Pulling a Dawkins doesn't work anymore. Your messiah cannot help you....he's busy ducking while doing his chicken dance.

For the thousandth time, disproving evolution does not prove Intelligent Design.

I already said, suppose I agree that evolution is entirely wrong. I'm still waiting for you to prove the case for Intelligent Design.

[Oleg Bach]

For the thousandth time, disproving evolution does not prove Intelligent Design.

I already said, suppose I agree that evolution is entirely wrong. I'm still waiting for you to prove the case for Intelligent Design.

BIG FONT suggests a punch in the face if you do not comply to their way of thinking. Maybe the fanatics can have a crusade or burn a few infidels at the stake? It's really irritating and offensive to have things shoved in your face - God does not bother doing it so why do fundemental Christian zealots think it's okay to use verbal violence...one thing leads to another - nothing worse than extremist anything....

There is intelligence in the universe but not here.

[betsy]

I'm still waiting for you to prove the case for Intelligent Design.

I don't have to. Science is headed in that direction.

Anyway, with evolution practically rotting away, what else is the rational alternative?

Intelligent Design.

Edited July 7, 2011 by betsy