XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: alt.i-hate.christians, alt.religion.christianity.hypocrisy
From: tw@s.com
> Ralph wrote:
>> On 7/18/2010 9:11 PM, AllSeeing-I wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 6:54 am, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> On 18 July, 10:25, old man joe wrote:> " And God
>>>> made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their
>>>> kind, and every thing
>>>>> that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it
>>>>> was good. "
>>>>
>>>>> " after his kind, " not after what an Evolutionist says.
>>>>
>>>>> in fact, going on 3 years ago, a typical Evolutionist writing for
>>>>> Natgeo. Channel made the claim " our Thanksgiving turkey was once
>>>>> a dinosaur which evolved back into a turkey. " crack heads make more
>>>>> sense then these doctors and PhD's who
>>>>> concoct such Gnostic non-sense.
>>>>
>>>> [snipped for brevity and focus]
>>>>
>>>> I know that omj chooses to post and run.
>>>>
>>>> But I must address this nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> First off, no creationist can come up with a clear definition of the
>>>> term "kind" that all other creationists can agree with.
>>>>
>>>> If "kind" is the same as species, then that calls into doubt the
>>>> idea that Noah had two of every "kind" on the ark, especially when you
>>>> consider the logistics of eight people having to feed, water, and
>>>> muck out all those critters.
>>>>
>>>> If "kind" is the same as genus or any of the other taxonomic
>>>> categories, then that calls into doubt the creationist claim that
>>>> evolution didn't (and cannot) happen, as there would have been a
>>>> phenomenal rate of diversification after the flood.
>>>>
>>>> Also that waffle about how someone working for National Geographic
>>>> is supposed to have said (or written) "our Thanksgiving turkey was
>>>> once a dinosaur which evolved back into a turkey" is a claim that
>>>> doesn't
>>>> hold water as no source material is provided.
>>>
>>> Pure unadulterated lies.
>>>
>>> There are definitions that the atheist will not accept. Ya see, the
>>> atheist will only accept one form of evidence. Which is synonymous to
>>> planting ones head up their.. err.. I mean planting ones head in the
>>> sand.
>>>
>>> Has anyone observed a species evolving from bird to dino then back to
>>> bird? No. Or a fish evolving from water to land then back to water?
>>> Of course not.
>>>
>>> But the atheist/evolutionist will accept science's definition even
>>> though no one has ever observed such a thing taking place. Nor does
>>> any process on the earth suggest that such a thing happens. Still,
>>> the atheist believes the men in the white coats like fish swallowing
>>> a loaded hook.
>>>
>>> Why do they do this? Because if they accepted other forms of valid
>>> evidence then they would be forced to admit that the theory of
>>> evolution is just an idea and not some kind of religious dogma.
>>>
>>> OTOH we have religious texts and ancient historical documents
>>> explaining what was created, how it was created and how everything
>>> has evolved since then. Guess what. The explanations match what we
>>> can observe and even manipulate for ourselves. Yes, species do adapt
>>> to their environment. I would expect nothing less from a brilliant
>>> creator then to give his creation a means to adapt to a dynamic
>>> earth. Anyone can take a garden or a litter of pups and manipulate the
>>> species as long as they are the same "kind".
>>>
>>> Simple. Direct. Observable. Just as we find in the ancient texts.
>>
>> Tell me Assman, what limits changes to species?
>
> His unfounded beliefs.
>
>
--
A tall waft can be done in short order...beware of the waft.
waft@the-nostrildominance.net
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
