XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
From: Smiler@Jo.king.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.
--
Smiler
The godless one.
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly
fit the prejudices of their believers.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
