Questions for creationists

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I dont believe in Trinity etheir. I would like to state that some of the stuff I have posted may not have come out just the way I planed. I would also like to point out that the very least I am looking for is for people just to be open to possiblity that life was created, if nothing else.

All I can say to that is HERETIC.

Actually I have done a better job of explaining the Trinity than any believer has that I have seen. The usual explanation is to say its beyound understanding. Which really means its nonsense but we have to believe it anyway.

The Trinity makes sense if you stop thinking of it as three entities. If its really three then christians are not monotheists. An all powerefull god can manifest itself anyway it chooses. The Trinity is merely three manifestions of a single god. A different manifestion for a diferent goal. I don't see anything at all mysterious about it. The only mystery is why anyone would say its a mystery.

So why don't you believe in the Trinity? I think it was made up as a compromise myself so I see no reason to accept it even if I believed the Bible but still I don't see anything inherently hard to accept if you accept all that other stuff. Its the other stuff that I find unbelievable.

I will get to your large post tommorow. Its quite extensive and will take time.

I don't see the actual source though. If its a book I can't find it on Amazon.

Life -How Did it get here? By Evolution or by Creation?

I used that and I also tried just the first half. How about an the name of the author? I would like to know that before I start writing a rebuttal.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Jack_www

I would also like to point out that the very least I am looking for is for people just to be open to possiblity that life was created, if nothing else.

Yes, you have shown me the Light! There is no evolution or beneficial mutations! How could I've been so ignorant? Why did I believe all the evidence, fossils and science that proved evolution to be a fact? Earth 4,5 billion years old, come on! Who could really believe that? Monkeys' as our ancestor? No thanks! All those fossils are there because of the Flood! That makes more sense that an old Earth or evolution. All those fossils and current species that are an intermediatespecies? Satan made them!
Thanks to you I am very open for the possibility of a Creator, but can you please show some evidence of Creation and Creator, any kind of evidence? If you don't have any, please ignore my soon to come 522349 requests for that evidence. Or is creation just a bogus religion without any evidence?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


All I can say to that is HERETIC.

Actually I have done a better job of explaining the Trinity than any believer has that I have seen. The usual explanation is to say its beyound understanding. Which really means its nonsense but we have to believe it anyway.

The Trinity makes sense if you stop thinking of it as three entities. If its really three then christians are not monotheists. An all powerefull god can manifest itself anyway it chooses. The Trinity is merely three manifestions of a single god. A different manifestion for a diferent goal. I don't see anything at all mysterious about it. The only mystery is why anyone would say its a mystery.

So why don't you believe in the Trinity? I think it was made up as a compromise myself so I see no reason to accept it even if I believed the Bible but still I don't see anything inherently hard to accept if you accept all that other stuff. Its the other stuff that I find unbelievable.

I will get to your large post tommorow. Its quite extensive and will take time.

I don't see the actual source though. If its a book I can't find it on Amazon.



I used that and I also tried just the first half. How about an the name of the author? I would like to know that before I start writing a rebuttal.

The book is published by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
If you want a copy of your own you can request one by writting to 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483.

[Ethelred]

The book is published by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
If you want a copy of your own you can request one by writting to 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483.

No I don't want a copy. The Watchtower has predicted the end of the world seven times. Last time they decided to predict the end they said it wasn't official. But only because there were getting embarrased about all the other mistakes.

They even postponed that 'unoficial' prediction once. I still didn't notice the world ending the second time either. That was in the 70's.

Unoficial but still in the oficial Watchtower paper.

So now I know why you don't believe in the Trinity. I suspect you will not be on this thread any longer. I have only seen one JW stick it out after the failed predictions are mentioned.

Then there is JW's teaching that its OK to lie to non JW's. They don't like that one mentioned either. Makes them vanish.

I do wonder why they bother recruiting new believers. Since only 144,000 are going to be saved I would think that would be an inherent limit to the number of JW's.

Can you tell I have a particular lack of respect at all for the Watchtower? Any religion that lets children die rather have a transfusion is not one I am going to respect at all. If the adults are that stupid well you have an excelent example there of how evolution works. Letting the children die before they can decide for themselves is unconsionable.

[DinoDoc]

Speaking of Watchtower Bible, has thier case been heard before the SCOTUS?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Ethelred

I do wonder why they bother recruiting new believers.

Money, money, money it's a believers world! They bled their accounts dry and look for more money. They have to built more temples and such. Oh and jack_www, did you notice my post above?

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html remind you of someone?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Speaking of Watchtower Bible, has thier case been heard before the SCOTUS?

This one?

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/009131.htm

Thats the lower court decision and it was in December 2001.

Oh found another case.

http://www.nlj.com/scotus/1029scotus-cert.shtml

That might be the one you are talking about. Its accepted for a hearing anyway.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm

Petition GRANTED. limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.
SET FOR ARGUMENT February 26, 2002.

So the hearing should have been finished. Now its time to wait for a decision. Looks iffy to me.

This is a PDF transcript of the hearing its 170KB.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11mar20020920/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-1737.pdf

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court has yet to make a decision.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Some info I wanted to post to support some of the stuff I have been trying to say.

Life -How Did it get here? By Evolution or by Creation?
pp99-111

Let me point out a few of the more obvious mistakes before Ethelred tears it to shreds completely

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.” 12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.” 13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

The result in such an experiment will always be against the mutated insects because the evironment is static. The unmutated insects are highly evolved to their environment, so the mutated insects cannot compete. It would perhaps be fair to say that in a static and homogenous world, there would no evolution either. However, this is obviously not the case is the world we live in. For this reason, that experiment was obviously flawed as it did not take into account the different and changing environments of the real world.

9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” 14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

These are bad analogies. The correct analogies would be 'thousands of builders', 'thousands of drivers', or 'thousands of surgeons'. One surgeon may do a more precise cut than another, thus making him "better", but he may also take so long that you die. Try another analogy.

12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.” 16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.

But it has! The larger roots will help it survive in times of drought. If it survives, it can have offspring. The change is thus perpetuated. If that plant exists over an area which half of it becomes drier, you end up with fundamentally different plants between the two areas, by natural selection. If the plant with longer roots grew in the wetter area, it would have a [i]detrimental[i] mutation. If it grew in the drier area, it would have a beneficial mutation. Only a change in climate can give the plant with longer roots an advantage over it's peers. Therefore, no environment change = no advantage = extinction.

13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

Blatantly wrong. A rhinocerous' horn is made from hair. So, is it hair, or is it a horn? *rebut, rebut*

The Fruit Fly Experiments
If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.

"Natural state" in this instance connotates a static environment. No environment on earth is permanently static. Natural selection eliminates mutants, but environmental change can be their saviour.

I'll get to the other points later, but i don't have as much time as Ethelred

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack-www:

As I said before, the number of harmful mutations does not matter. Harmful mutations get eliminated, beneficial mutations prevail.

Furthermore, the authors of the scientific sources cited are well aware of this simple fact. This is the creationist out-of-context quote in action. For instance, if I say "mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, but the beneficial ones are the ones that succeed", I can be quoted as saying "mutations are overwhelmingly harmful". The creationists responsible for pulling out such quotes know exactly what they are doing: creating false propaganda to deceive the gullible. For them, there is big money in this.

You need to stop thinking of these people as "good Christians". They are lying scum.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Do creationists know that the Earth goes around the Sun? If they do know it, why is it so hard to understand all the evidence that supports evolution? Four years ago I didn't know anything about evolution. I did know about the Bible's tale of Genesis, but after I read three biology, geology and history books I started to know and understand about the thing the creationists are so afraid of.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Actually, many of them do NOT know that the Earth goes around the Sun. Some YEC's are geocentrists.

EARTH is not a PLANET !

[Ethelred]

I don't think I have ever seen a site with backward masking before. I wonder what satanic phrases are hidden amongst the jumble.

What the heck is a link to Soldier of Fortune doing there?

I have the horrible feeling that site is real. Its hard to tell the parodies from the real ones sometimes.

Its GREAT site though. The best example I have ever seen on just what not do with HTML.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Actually, many of them do NOT know that the Earth goes around the Sun. Some YEC's are geocentrists.

EARTH is not a PLANET !

Hard to believe that's not a joke - it's just so, so, so stupid!

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Ethelred:
I do wonder why they bother recruiting new believers. Since only 144,000 are going to be saved I would think that would be an inherent limit to the number of JW's.

Its either the JW's or you who didn't properly read the Bible (and I suspect it's the JW's)

Cited from King James' Bible:

Revelation 7, 4:
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

The 144000 are Jews.

7, 9:
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

So, there are more, and

7,13-17 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they 1before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

There is also salvation for numerous others. (In many places, early Christianity had a special role for Christians of Jewish origin.)

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ethelred


This one?

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/009131.htm

Thats the lower court decision and it was in December 2001.

Oh found another case.

http://www.nlj.com/scotus/1029scotus-cert.shtml

That might be the one you are talking about. Its accepted for a hearing anyway.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm

Petition GRANTED. limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.
SET FOR ARGUMENT February 26, 2002.

So the hearing should have been finished. Now its time to wait for a decision. Looks iffy to me.

This is a PDF transcript of the hearing its 170KB.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11mar20020920/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/00-1737.pdf

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court has yet to make a decision.

The decission will be handed down in July of 2002.