This message has the distinction of being Nowhere Man <some_where_man@yahoo.com>'s earliest entry in the archive. As of this writing, this foray into comp.graphics.apps.photoshop is his only posting outside of talk.origins.

Being president must be easy - why even a chimp could... nevermind.

Evolutionists are cunning in their strategies. They try to erase God from the picture by making him unneeded. They say that complex life forms can evolve from simple life forms without God. They say that all kinds of creation came from one kind of life. They say that life came about spontaneously without any help. They say evolution and life has no purpose or guidance. As if this were not enough, they say it's all scientific fact and then teach it to innocent children in schools! Their godless blasphemy does not have a limit. But are these things really true? Or are evolutionists trying to deceive us? Let us fairly examine the evidence and put the evolutionists to shame.

Complex life from simple life? Evolutionists say this is fact, but where's the data? What evidence is there that complex life can evolve from simple life? Evolutionists have none! Absolutely none, yet they amazingly claim that it's a fact! Now that's amazing! They claim their precious "natural selection" can do anything, but they have no evidence to support it. The first lie has been easily uncovered.

All life forms from one? Evolutions say that we came from the same life form that potatoes did. Some of the life forms evolved into potatoes, others carrots, and others humans. How do they even suggest these things without laughing at each other? They say that it took millions of years. Anything can happen in a million years, right? Wrong! Is there even any evidence to support this? No. Evolutionists say that all life forms have unmistakable similarities and therefore must have came from one life form. That makes sense! Pepperoni pizza and sausage pizza both have cheese and crust, therefore they were not designed, but evolved from a single proto-pizza ancestor! Does it not make more sense that both pizzas were designed using similar ingredients but for different purposes?

Life from non-life? This is the most unsupported of the evolutionists' dogma. Unlike most evolutionist dogma which has no evidence, this one actually has evidence against it! Scientists have tried and tried to figure out how life could have got started and have failed miserably. Yet in spite of all that failure they teach it to innocent kids in school as fact! They refuse to even consider the logical conclusion that life is designed. That's not science, that's dogma!

No purpose? To go even further into the depths of dogma, some scientists say it is all purposeless and blind. They tell children in schools that they are the end of result of a purposeless blind natural process. How do scientists know life is purposeless? Who granted them the divine right to declare what has purpose and what doesn't? It's very clear. They're doing nothing but spreading their unfounded anti-God dogma.

It is easy to see the lies of evolutionists. Sometimes it can seem intimidating when evolutionists try to force their supposed authority by claiming they have lots of knowledge on the matter. But it is important that these unfounded teachings are not accepted as fact. They must be taken out of schools so that children may be free to make up their minds for themselves. The evolutionists' lies must be refuted so that they will be sent home crying with their "vestigial" tails planted firmly between their legs!

Typical evolutionist strategy. Assert your supposed authority without any evidence. Be aware of tactics like this. The truth is honest and evident but lies are dishonest and dogmatic.

It really was not that special of a post. I don't know why that you insist I plagiarized it. It's very insulting. But don't feel bad. It's not your fault, you're probably an evolutionists and are very used to making unfounded claims. I'm sure that God would forgive you if you only asked him to.

People who are used, as we are, to dealing with hard case creationists must be able to deal with the gross dishonesty and the pathetic lack of ethical behavior that is exhibited constantly by said creationists. Unrepentant plagiarism is but one tiny fault in the pantheon of hard case creationist amorality.

I did a web search for your little essay. I found no sources on the web for it. So, I am willing to grant, conditionally, that you did not plagiarize it.

That said, your biggest fault so far seems to be that your are pig-ignorant. If you think that I am wrong (about you being pig-ignorant), then you will have to show some (real) knowledge of that very same evolutionary theory that you wish to criticize.

Please don't place words in my mouth. I never claimed evolution was anti-theistic. There are many theistic concepts that work with evolution. The popular dogma of evolution is anti-God. It is directly against the Bible's description of the true God. I question the moral integrity of anyone tries to erase the true God with scientific theories. The true God has purpose for all things. The popular dogma of evolution teaches that evolution has no purpose and that life happened by change. It IS anti-God. That is not a lie unless you twist and mangle my words like evolutionists do with their theories.

If that is not what you meant, then I apologize.

Can you please provide citations to this alleged "popular dogma"?

When does biological evolution make any comment on God?

Virtually every atheist I know (myself included) does not dispense with deities because of evolution, or any scientific discipline. There are far better reasons (in my opinion) to not believe in gods.

Evolution does not deny this, nor does it confirm it.

Again, can you please provide citations to this "popular dogma"?

Now you're attacking evolution again.

1. What is an "evolutionist"?

2. What, inevolutionary theory, is twisted and mangled? Please be specific. What facets of the theory do you find to be incorrect?

Don't apologize. This is in the first paragraph. "They try to erase God from the picture by making him unneeded."

If that's not suggesting evolutionists are anti-theistic I'd like to know what is.

An evolutionist in a real discussion! That would be something.

The "Nowhere Man" name does make it look like a troll because that is just where this argument is going, but it isn't really over the top enough to register high on the troll meter. It reads like something Philip Johnson would write if he could write it anonymously.

Nowhere Man was a great Beatles song in 1965 on the Rubber Soul album. Please do not use the name Nowhere Man to post such stupid things :)

IIRC the "Nowhere Man" of the title was a sad, colorless, generally pathetic individual in desperate need of a Life.

I am a humble person if that's what you were wanting to convey.

There is something truly ironic about someone referring to themselves as "humble".

I would expect as much from an evolutionists. Assert you're right and go from there. Maybe you are right. Evolutionists are NOT cunning. They just leach off the godless work of Darwin and pretend to know something about life.

Do you have evidence that shows that biological evolution does not happen? Beyond that, do you have any evidence that scientists have any desire to overthrow your god?

Do you have evidence that Santa Clause does not deliver presents at Christmas time? Of course not. It's false.

Is biological evolution when a species changes in some way? Of course that happens. That is a fact. Evolutionists try to pin extra dogma to that fact. Extra dogma which I've described several times.

Read anything by Mr. Dawkins.

Are you smoking dope? Read the above again, and tell me you meant to say that.

The only definition of dogma that I can find that fits your usage appears to be:

Which, of course, actually applies to the whole of the bible, and not to evolution.

Indeed! And your message was just placed there!

How old are you? Name calling is common among young kids who don't know any better but people of any maturity learn to avoid such childish habits. Please do not post to this thread unless you have evidence for the dogmas of evolution which I described.

You understand you began this thread with little but name calling, and have continued with little else. Do you have any facts you'd like to cite, with your evidence that they actually are facts?

You are awfully judgmental for someone accusing people being judgmental.

If that is true you would have to walk to for billions of years to find the evidence for your godless evolution. See, I can play these mindless childish games as well. But I do not teach them to innocent children in school.

Well, I don't want you teaching your religion to my kids. I want my kids to learn about science and how it works and why we have the various theories that we do have, within the limits of their ability to understand. I don't want people like you forcing your particular religious beliefs nakedly or in the clothes of ID down their throat. Take your kids to your church if you want them to learn your religion, and leave the public school system out of it.

So it's okay for evolutionists to force their beliefs on children but not okay for anyone else? At least other beliefs have some supporting data. There is more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible than for man evolving from supposed ape-animals. So maybe we should replace the man-from-beast teaching in science textbooks with the teaching that God created man. Or does that make you uncomfortable? At the very least the unfounded teachings should be removed from the books.

If evolution is just change then of course evolution is real. If evolution is everything growing from pond slime with no purpose or direction then evolution is fantasy. Fantasy should not be taught in science classes.

You say that as if there are only those two alternatives. Is that what you believe? Because there are many possible intermediate positions. One could believe, for example, that everything grew from pond slime with some purpose and direction. That would be the position of many Christians who also believe in evolution. I suppose you would say that they aren't really Christians? Nevertheless, they think they are, so this claimed dichotomy between atheistic evolution and divine creation is shown to be false.

On this we all agree, but we disagree on what is fantasy and what is fact. Are you in any way interested in discussing the evidence?

You must be an evolutionist. Evolutionists think they're very good at twisting things around. I don't know how God created the earth or life or man. But God made it clear that He did do it. God make it clear to all that he did so that all are without excuse. Maybe God used evolution in creating animals. We don't know that but we can't make claims where we don't the truth.

What we do know is that we all came from Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago. And we know that God created Adam and Eve. We don't know many of the things that evolutions try to teach.

...

My intent is posting here is to show all that are reading that there is no evidence to support many of the teachings of evolutionists. They will see that evolutionists are unable to present evidence to support their wild claims which may or (most likely) may not be true.

I'm just wondering what you're trying to say, or if you even realize quite what you're saying. If you don't believe that rejecting evolution is necessary to maintain faith in God, then why do you worry so much about evolution being taught in schools? Most people who believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God have no problem reconciling their concept of that god with the accepted facts of evolution and common descent. Why do you?

Maybe God is behind it all, maybe he isn't. Indeed we don't know this. We do know that all known species evolved from what was a single life form very early on in the history of life, whether God had a hand in the process or not.

No, this is clearly wrong. There are cave paintings over 30 thousand years old; if the first humans came along 6000 years ago, who painted those? Note that many cave paintings depict humans hunting. And there was no Adam and Eve -- even if there was a "first human" as determined by some arbitrary set of criteria, he existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, and he was part of a population of almost-humans who didn't quite match the criteria, whatever they might be.

The Genesis story cannot be taken literally.

But you haven't shown that there is no evidence; you've merely asserted that there isn't. You've been provided links to masses of existing evidence, but I haven't seen any posts where you addressed any of it. Perhaps you ought to start. If you wish to prove conclusively that the theory of evolution is incorrect or at least incomplete, this article would be a good place to start.

You want to demolish the evolutionary establishment? Get crackin' :)

In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.

One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden to show the proofs for their claim.

I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from one life form. That includes humans.

First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own site.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html:

There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this, they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support their claim as fact.

They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at work.

If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.

I thought God could do anything. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent and all that if you can't do what ever you want?

I understand this is a big problem for God. But He and His therapist are working through His issues, and I'm certain He will be a better god for it. He'll just have to learn the little litany "I cannot make a stone so big that I cannot push it... I cannot make make a stone so big that I cannot push it..."

If you two are so curious maybe you should try reading the Bible.

I spent the first fifteen years of my life in religious indoctrination and have read the Bible from beginning to end. Please don't try to overawe me. Save your breath for defending your lies and assertions.

Gee I wonder if evolution supporters like Arby's curly fries.

My apologies if I've not provided enough context here. Other than mocking the sentence structure of the previous poster, I cannot discern Nowhere Man's intent.

Any evidence would be nice. I've taken the time to carefully examine your online articles.

At this point, Dana Tweedy and Nowhere Man are effectively in a one-on-one debate. This and the next half a dozen postings are worth reading in their entirety.

Fossil evidence

Are you really serious? Now how can anyone tell the difference between a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape? Humans come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls? Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to forge?

Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's Word the Bible? Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were just a few strange skulls? If you don't start with the assumption of the evolution dogma the answer is clear.

Molecular evidence

Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought (somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.

Anatomical evidence

Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with various animal species we must have came from animals! We look somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape! So if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came from something like a dog or a cow.

So anatomical similarities fit your idea of evolution. Big deal. That doesn't make your idea true. Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's idea of creation. Does that mean creation is true too? It could be either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact. That's bad science.

Biogeographic evidence

I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal issue.

Genetic evidence

Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities. There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic similarity. The design explanation deals with the issue much better. So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.

Evidence in general

Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man from ape-animals a fact. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma. What would I expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?

• No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
• No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
• No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
• Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
• Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000 years ago to now.
• Lots of evidence for intelligent man back until about 6000 years ago where it comes to a sudden stop.

Funny how the real world matches the Bible so perfectly.

I posted this at 10:30 last night. There is hardly enough time for you have carefully examined all those sites.

...

It invalidates your claim that there is no evidence for evolution.

...

I am a fast reader.

...

I never claimed that. You made that up.

...

Or, more likely you simply skimmed the sites, if you even visited them at all.

...

No, look at your posting. You repeated your claim:

I don't have to make anything up, you are damning yourself with you own words.

...

Nowhere Man begins snipping in earnest.

I hope that someone reading this will point out how you're twisting my words. There's a BIG difference between "evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years" and "evidence for evolution". If you can't see that then we can't have a coherent discussion! I don't twist your words, you could return the favor! Evolutionists always have to right, they can't admit when slip up!

...

snipping for length. Sit back, this is gonna be a long one

...

Why don't you point that out yourself? I am not twisting your words, I am just showing where you have been inconsistent.

True, but since we have both evidence for evolution, and evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years, what is your beef?

I freely admit when I make mistakes, as many others here can attest. However I never twisted your words, and I have not made a mistake here. I am just showing you where you made inconsistent statements

...

snipping...

...

You stated: "... It invalidates your claim that there is no evidence for evolution." You clearly stated that I made a "claim that there is no evidence for evolution". I denied that claim because I never made it. Attempting to back up your first statement you stated: "No, look above. You repeated your claim. "There is no real evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years. If there is, I have not seen it. And I don't know it's being hidden so very well""

This does not back up your first statement where you claimed I said there was no "evidence for evolution." Which I never said. My statement was about "evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years." Let me elaborate on your logical problems. It is very logically possible that there could be some evidence for evolution (such as fossils documenting change in one species) and yet no evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years. Whether or not you believe it - it is still a logical possibility. You are trying to make there two claims equal and they are not. If can not see this and apologize then we can not have a logical discussion. If you can see this and apologize then I will continue the discussion.

If she cannot show that she understands basic ideas of logic then I cannot trust her judgment on other matters. To me it is very childish not admit when you make a mistake in a discussion. If she cannot admit to such an obvious mistake then it is very likely that other things she is defending could also easily be false. If she could show she has reasoning ability then I would be willing to go back and answer her points. But so far she has shown a child-like stubbornness in being right about everything she says.

However you have made the mistake of assuming that I am female. I'm not. How can I trust your judgement on anything?

If it makes you feel any better, I was hasty in combining those two claims. However, we have both evidence for evolution, and we have evidence for an ancient earth. It doesn't matter if you try to split hairs and claim that the two claims are not essentially the same thing.

However, if you bother to check, you will find that I have been right about everything I said. You were wrong. You are even wrong about my gender. Even if I inadvertently misinterpeted your original claims, your claims are still both false. I have shown reasoning ability, and the ability to show you as being wrong.

If this is your way of saving face to abandon the arguement that you got in over your head, so be it. It's not like there is a scarcity of ignorance and arrogance in this newsgroup.

Here's how: I apologize. It was an honest mistake. Reasonable people can recognize when they make a mistake and even correct themselves. I even gave you an example of how to do so.

Even if there is evidence that man is older than about 6000 years it has nothing to do with your false claim that I said there was no evidence for EVOLUTION. That is my beef.

Fine, now can you apologize for implying that scientists fake fossils? Can you apologize for saying that Scientists are "anti-God"? Can you apologize for your claim that you haven't seen evidence that human are older than 6000 years? Can you apologize for your claim that evolutionary theory contains "dogmas"? Can you apologize for calling me a liar? Can you apologize for your arrogant and unchrisitan attitude?

My reading of your postings brought me to the conclusion that you were denying the evidence for evolution. Splitting the concepts of small scale evolution and larger scale evolution is a common Creationists tactic. Perhaps I should have been more specific. You were denying the fact of Human evolution, not evolution in general. You seem to accept that evolution can happen within species, but can't seem to grasp that evolution is an ongoing process, with no limits to keep speciation from continuing. The diversity of life we see today is the result of evolutionary processes working over hundreds of millions of years. That is not a "dogma" but the clear inference from the evidence. If the evidence did not indicate such a process, science would not claim it does. Likewise human evolution is a clear inference from the evidence, not a rigidly held dogma. If the evidence pointed away from an ape ancestory for humans, then science would not claim that humans are apes. These conclusions are based on the evidence, and nothing more.

I have read many comments where evolutionists ask for a definition of "kind" - as if it were unclear in some way. The Bible is very insightful on this matter and the answer is very clear. At Gen 1:21 we read, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Then at Gen 1:24-25, "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis gives us examples of categories by functions and features. So kinds are separated by the animal's functions or features. A kind would be a group of organisms sharing common functions or features.

I personally do not know of anywhere in the Bible where it says one kind cannot become two kinds. But if it did the theory of evolution would be false. So how can we tell one kind from another kind? Take two animals. If one can be achieved from the other by changing one or more of it's existing features (without adding new ones) it is the same kind. If one of the two animals has a feature that the other does not (such as a new organ) then it is a different kind.

How can you tell what a feature is? This is pretty clear but you have to spell everything out for evolutionists because they like to pick apart your words instead of learn truth. A feature or function is something that can be changed in one direction or the other but not added to. Like a leg that can made longer or shorter but not into a wing. Or like fur that can be thicker or thinner but into feathers. If features are only made from genes instructions then adding features would be same as adding brand new working genes. If evolution can do this then it can probably make new kinds. But I really doubt it can. It can probably only change existing features.

What does this tell scientists? It tells them that they should expect to find forms of life suddenly appear in the fossil record with existing and varying features (creation events). The answers to many questions (even scientific ones) can be very easily found in God's Word the Bible. This is because God created all things.

Do the facts agree with evolution theory or Biblical creation? Let us examine the evidence.

Why believe the theory of evolution? Does it not make more sense to follow the facts where they lead? Yes it does. Then why is the theory of evolution held by many scientists? It is because many scientists do not want to accept the Bible's story of creation. It means that they have to accept that miracles took place in ancient times and that the Bible is the ultimate authority.

Students are criticized by teachers for pointing out the problems of evolution theory. They are not allowed to see opposing ideas. Academic groups do not accept those who hold opposing views such as the Bible's account of creation. Scientific theories are supposed to be held tentatively. Supporting scientists say that the theory of evolution is not to be challenged. Does that sound scientific?

The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years and it is still doubted by many. Do people still doubt that gravity exists? Or that the earth revolves around the sun? So how could we be so sure about the theory of evolution that it is not to be challenged? The truth is, we can't. The theory of evolution simply does not stand up to the facts.

It is interesting that you accuse me of lying but yet cannot show how I am lying or what precisely I said that was untrue. It is interesting indeed.

What is even more "interesting" is that out of twenty or so replies to your original message, the only two you replied to are those that didn't include a complete rebuttal of your speciousness, and yet you act as if no one has done so. Care to explain why that is?

I am not lying. I can assure you I completely believe every word I wrote. Can you back up even one of your accusations?

Now that's a lie. I put a good amount of effort and consideration into this.

Take a look at trilobites, 15,000 species discovered and more being found all the time. Note that some have lost their eyes and this can be documented. But you of course want the transitional between these 15,000 species don't you and then you would want the transitional between the transitional :O)

Nice try. Got any better arguments.

So you found a bunch a trilobites. The only change you can show us is loss of function? You can't show us a trilobite turning into a fish or mouse? Doesn't sound very transitional to me.

No they developed eyes too, even complex ones and then lost them again. After losing the eyes completely some developed a more streamlined body shape for swimming or for moving thru silt and sand. Trilobites are the best documented of all the transitional as they lived for hundreds of millions of years and changed dramatically over that time. Some trilobites even developed spines as a protection device. Definitely not a loss of "information".

Whales though not as well documented developed from a land creature and ended up with a entirely new body shape complete with sonar. Hardly a loss of "info" there either.

But you missed the point of my post, no matter how many fossils I point out, you just keep asking for the transitional between the latest two but evolution doesn't work always in that way. Say a trilobite who normally had large eyes acquired a mutation that prevented any eye growth. This trilobite may indeed have an advantage in the silt and may even replace those with eyes. Now if you came along and asked for a transitional between the two there would not be one would there. Evolution doesn't always move in discrete steps that you may have imagined.

I wrote every word. I am the source.

I thought so. Here's how it works. The goal is to write a short story explaining the how the universe, stars, earth, water, ocean life, land life, and airborne life, and finally man came into existance. The rules are:

1. You must write this story in a way that a simple minded and uneducated tribe of people can understand.

2. You must assume that this tribe has no scientific knowledge and may already have strange beliefs.

3. You must not give away any new scientific knowledge in your story that they don't already know but must write the story using terms they will understand.

Simple enough?

And the winner is...

drum roll...

Frank Reichenbacher for his posting the Genesis account - the best and most accurate explanation of our origins that all people can understand. Thank you for time and participation. I hope we all learned a valuable lesson.

How do evolutionists date the layers of the earth? By the fossils dating of course? But how do they know fossil dating is accurate? By the layers of the earth of course? How do evolutionists date the layers of the earth?

So what is survival of the fittest again? That means the fittest will survive. But who are the fittest? The ones who survive of course. But how do you know who will survive? By the principle of survival of the fittest. So what is survival of the fittest again?

As of the date of this writing, this thread has been a "post and run" for Nowhere Man, in spite of a variety of responses.

I challenge anyone to find a creation account within a 1000 years or earlier of the writing of Genesis that is a more accurate description of how we know things to have taken place. Any takers? Hmmmmm? Nothing that even comes close? What do you enlightened people have to say about that?

Unfortunately for the evolutions, no other creation account came close the accuracy of the Genesis account. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

To those who the claim the Genesis account is not even accurate I wonder how they explain it's astonishing accuracy. Perhaps Moses wrote Genesis accounts for millions of years until he got it right. Then natural selection selected the right one. Does that sound like an evolutionist explanation? Some claim the Genesis account came from the Babilonian creation myth. Judge for yourself: "The Enuma Elish is the earliest written creation myth, in which the God Marduk battles the chaos Goddess Tiamat and her evil minions. The name 'Enuma Elish' is derived from the first two words of the myth, meaning 'When in the Height'. Tiamat takes the form of a gigantic snake, and Marduk battles and defeats her using an arsenal of super-weapons. After his victory Marduk is made the leader of the Gods by acclamation. Marduk divides Tiamat's corpse into two portions, the upper half becoming the sky and the lower half, the earth. Marduk then creates humanity from his blood and bone." Do you see any resemblance other than it's about creation? It's totally rediculous and nothing like the consice and accurate Genesis account to which nothing comes close.

This was not a contest. This was just a challenge to demonstrate how superior the Bible's creation account is to all others. Some say the accuracy and knowledge of the Bible is a just a coincidence. But if it was just by chance then why don't any other anchient beliefs have this type of accuracy? This answer is simple. The knowledge came from a higher source.

...

But most here don't , because we've found that it is just plain wrong.

...

What is wrong about it? That you don't like that it's so right?

...

No, it's just wrong. Plants could not have survived before the sun. The ordering is wrong. The stars and the sun existed prior to the Earth.

Look, you have contorted the Genesis cosmological myth, and you still can't get it to fit. That's because it isn't a scientific account, it's a mythical account. It's quantitively no different than the Greek cosmological myth or the Babylonian myth. People back then simply did not have the tools to discern what actually happened, so, for all intents and purposes, they made their best guess.

...

For the last time! The Bible says this too. He created light before any life came about and where does light come from?

...

Well however it happened that's how it happen. Science has not shown anything different. And that's why Genesis is accurate.

...

I suspect you know the Bible is true but you are possibly afraid of responsibilities and ridicule that come with accepting the truth.

...

There is much truth in the Bible, but it often isn't accurate as science and history.

...

There is nothing but truth in the Bible.

But even the truth can be used for false ends, as Young Earth Creationists are wont to do.

You say the Genesis creation account comes from other sources but you can't show them. Now THAT'S a bunch of hooey. There are no other accounts that come close. Why don't you proove ME wrong?

It comes partly from the Enuma Elish; some parts are from the Gilgamesh epos, too.

You were already proven wrong - you simply don't acknowledge this. Ever heard of the Black Knight?

And how do these stories have anything to do with Genesis?

DSGfg fkg ireioerjkl fkl jgwlw cxx lkxlkslkgs ds.. dkrlkd,dd.

For example, the story about the snake and the Tree of Knowledge probable comes from the Gilgamesh epos. Try asking Aron-Ra about this, he knows more about this than I.

On the other hand, both Enuma Elish and Genesis say that in the beginning, the Earth was covered with water.

Yes, that makes about as much sense as everything else you have written so far.

What does that have to do with the creation account?

The Bible doesn't even directly say that! That's your basis for saying the entire account came from another account. That's desparate.

And it makes more sense than your slanders agaisnt the Bible so far.

I consider the story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to be part of the creation account - after all, the "real" history of the Earth began only after the original sin.

YOU YOURSELF said that according to the Genesis account, the Earth was "enshrouded" in water.

No, that's only a small part of my basis for saying that. As I said above, ask Aron-Ra about this, he knows much more about this. But obviously you aren't willing to do this - after all, you may learn something new if you did that! What a horrible thought!

Did you notice that you are the only one in this thread who thinks so? That even other Christians (people who believe in Christ, not your strange version of "True Christian", which is essentially equal to JW) disagree with you?

And where did I use "slander against the Bible"? I only pointed out the errors in your claims!

Here we have a step by step creation account of the world in Genesis and it is the only one is existance that hasn't been falsified by science. Then you try to dismiss by talking about some other story that talks about a tree of knowledge. Ok so somehow Moses figured out this amazing account from another story about a tree? That makes sense..... There's no other account of creation that's anything like Genesis. All you can find is little tiny similarities here and there. It's very desparate.

Yes, but it's just a deduction. And it's just about water. You try and say the whole story was based off another story on the basis of some water.

Or more likely.... there are no real similarities and you're trying to send me on wild goose chase. That's what evolutionists do. "The evidence is out there.... somewhere... just keep looking you'll find it!"

What errors?!?

But it has been falsified, and on this newsgroup, and I'm not even a scientist. Nowhere Man, just repeating something does not make it true.

...

That's a good JW, Nowhere Man, run and hide. I suspect that soon enough the Watchtower Society will be telling its members to stay away from Usenet, so I don't expect to see you much longer.

...

If you claim that Genesis is an actual account of how the planet and the life on it formed, then it is in error.

A valuable lesson that you should learn.

...

When my work is done I'll leave. But not before.

...

Just repeating something does not make it true.

Homosexuality is immoral.

1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." KJV/NIV

Rom. 1:24-27: "God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." KJV/NIV

1 Tim. 1:9-11: "Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God." KJV/NIV

Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." KJV/NIV

I wasn't able to find an online New World Translation (NWT) of the Holy Scriptures. Although they substantially differ, King James and New International Version links are provided.

It is not bigotry. It is the inspired word of God.

How do you know?

That's a big question. There are many lines of evidence and proofs. But in general we have proof in nature of a Creator and the proof in the Bible of divine authorship.

Paul was a bigot WRT sexuality. He had real issues. He was a smart man and well educated but he was, in the end, as faulty as the rest of us. If God inspired any part of what he wrote, at times the message failed to get through. For after all, we know now that homosexuality is a natural part of biological reality, and social expression.

Unfortunately, the God shown by nature is not the God you claim to find in the Bible... so perhaps there are two Gods - one who is the actual creator and is mightily pleased with constants and causal processes, and one who is psychotic and writes scripture about the world he'd have made if only they'd untie the straitjacket sleeves...

So when the Bible says killing is wrong then the Bible is oppressing "segment of the population" who are murderers?

The Bible is very clear about killing. It is only acceptable when God commands it.

Yes, that excuse has been used for mass murder for centuries.

So if God commands you to kill all homosexuals, you will be up to the task?

If God says it is wrong then it is immoral.

I trust you have never eaten pork or shellfish, nor have you ever worked on the Sabbath.

Will you support laws making it illegal to eat the flesh of the swine? Or laws making it illegal to eat anything from the ocean lacking fins and scales? Will you stage protests outside restaurants selling these products? Will you boycott stores that are open on Sunday? Will you stone to death the workers at those stores?

It's a funny thing, isn't it? One might think that you bigots don't really care about the word of God, unless it conveniently supports your pre held biases. Why is that? Why is it OK for YOU to ignore Gods' commands, yet you condemn others for doing so?

Most importantly, why would you hate two people for loving each other?

All those things you mentioned were part of the old laws. Things changed after Jesus.

We're supposed to love people but hate what is bad. So you hate the bad thing but not the person.

Excellent. This means I am now free to:

1. Worship other Gods.
2. Make graven images.
3. Take Gods' name in vain.
4. Ignore the Sabbath.
5. Dishonor my parents.
6. Murder anyone I want.
7. Cheat on my wife.
8. Steal whatever I want
9. Bear false witness, and
10. Covet my neighbors' property.

Do you disagree? Perhaps you could explain to me why it is that the Jehovas Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag? I could have sworn that it was because that was in violation of commandment #2. Maybe I'm wrong.

Again, I say you are merely picking and choosing which of your gods' commands to follow, as suits your own biases.

An interesting rationalization for your bigotry. Why do you feel that love is a bad thing? Why does their love evoke hatred in your heart?

No.

So you disapprove of someone God made it clear he supported. Isn't this a bit presumptuous of you, not to mention blashpemous and heretical?

No.... I disapprove of the action. I wouldn't support someone doing it.

Your equivocation is noted. Now, answer the question.

No.

No. Some try to say that evolution theory is proven fact. They do this by a practice known as term switching. This was a practice started by Satan in the Garden of Eden and he has been doing this ever since. First the evolutionist says evolution is just change. Then he says change is a fact so evolution is a fact. Then once you agree with him he says, see evolution theory is a fact. But we are not ignorant of thier snare so we do not fall for them. Evolution theory is not just change. It says that all life forms came from one life form. It says that man came from ape-men. It says that there could not have been an Adam and Eve. Is that what the Bible says? No. So why do people believe it? Because for them it is justifacation for not following the Bible so that they do not have to be accountable to anyone. There are two ways to tell if something is true. First we can read the Bible. If the Bible says it then it is true. Second we can go see for ourselves. This is another way to see that evolution theory is founded on Godless lies. Do not be decieved by the term switching of evolutionists.

God.

...

So was he term switching with "on that day" or "you shall surely die"?

...

There's no term switching. Adam clearly understood. God says that a day for him is like a 1000 to us and Adam died before reaching 1000. Also, on that day that he sinned God removed his holy spirit from Adam so that could also be viewed as the day he died. You can thank God for not killing him because now you get to live because of it.

...

LoL. That's some argument that no term switching was involved!

Do you even pay attention to what you're posting?

...

Lies. All lies.

There is not rational reason NOT to think it is the word of God.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and squinking doesn't change anything.

Since there is no reason to believe, or not believe, it's rendered moot, and we'll just have to go with the physical evidence wrt the age of the earth, universe, moon, stars, planets, life, and so on.

Feel free to use it as a morality guide, however.

And by open minded you mean those who will reject all but your interpretation of the Bible. Yes, very open minded.

Look, it's bad enough you want me to believe the LORD would curse all serpents forever for something that was not their doing; and when you ask me to believe there is some invisible sword somewhere spinning around and doing flip flops guarding the invisible entrance to invisible Eden, then I'm afraid your credibility becomes a bit strained. But when you ask me to believe that Balaam would kill the very donkey who was just as old as Balaam - well, I'm sorry but I don't think I can buy that just on your say-so. After all, you will admit you are somewhat biased on the matter; and besides, *you* are the one who is always complaining about the supposed absence of evidence.

You're crazy.

If it makes you feel reassured, the Atheists would agree with you.

I was thinking that what I said was mean and so it was wrong. So I appologize and I hope you'll accept my appology. But I did not mean it seriously.

S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET

By Toby Reynolds

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link to humanity, researchers said on Friday.

After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.

...

The Sterkfontein fossils, including the oldest known complete Australopithecus skeleton, had previously been dated between two and three million years old by other research teams. But Professor Tim Partridge, the study's lead author, said the new dates were the best yet.

"There is going to be a lot of shouting going on, but I think that this will stick. I think these are very good dates."

...

Partridge said he anticipated criticism of the results to focus on the complicated structure of the Sterkfontein caves from where samples were taken. But the new technique did not rely upon knowledge of the rock strata, he said, adding that it was robust and would withstand scrutiny.

Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?

Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?

On the nature programs it's just grass as far the eye can see. If they have many caves then they must not be too interesting. I've never been there so I can't tell you. But I can tell you there was no ape-men in them.

So, on nature programs you didn't see any caves (you might have missed a few nature programs then, yes?) Then you go on to say you've never seen them, so you can't say, but with certainty you can still claim that none of them have any ape-men[sic] in them. If you haven't seen the caves, and can't say if there are or are not any caves, how can you make a possitive assertion that there are no ape men fossils in them? Me thinks thee hast a double standard.

That's not what I said at all. Africa is a whole continent. So how could there not be caves somewhere in Africa? Evolutionists make it seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa. This is because of an obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did they live? For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to live in. They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all men, including white men came from Africans. So they pretend like there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of ape-men to live in. But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious problems that evolutionists ignore.

I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists trying to portray doubters as uneducated. It's simply not the case at all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid. If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make us doubters look stupid?

Nick Keighley wrote:

Periodically, a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses will come to my door and try to present their message. When I tell them that I am an atheist, they immediately ask me where I think everything in the world came from. When I tell them that evolution and cosmology pretty much take care of it, they launch into an attack on evolution.

I believe that creationists are trying to use creation to prove that God exists. They see evolution as a challenge to their proof. This is why so many creationists see evolution as anti-God and why they equate evolution with atheism. Their own faith is no enough for them, they need to be able to present a proof to others.

Science has allowed us to see the heavens filled with stars and nebula and galaxies rather than lights placed there by gods to light our way. Science has explained volcanoes and earthquakes and thunderstorms as natural occurrences rather than the anger of the gods. Science has discovered that living organisms are animated by chemical processes rather than a mystic force or energy that occupies the body. Science has shown us that diseases are the result of viruses invading the body rather than possession by spirits or demons.

Creationists see creation as the last proof that God exists. If they let go of this belief, then science has explained everything, and there is no longer any reason to believe in God.

Evolution is no challenge to God.

There are many proofs that God exists. If you want to learn the answers and learn about God then you should study the Bible. The answers are all there. The next time JWs come to your house I recommend you listen to them and ask them questions.

So, are you an Old Earth/Universe Theistic Evolutionist?

...

I tried listening to JWs once, they didn't have any answers, and I didn't have time to sit there and listen to them jabber incoherently about things they were ignorant of. (I asked them a really simple question: Why was their religious belief better than anyone elses?)

The earth is old and made it. Evolution happens but only as change. Man did not evolve from ape-men.

...

It is based on the Bible and Bible teachings where other religions are not.

We are still "apes", but we shared a common ancestor with the other apes. That is what the evidence (DNA and detailed morphology) strongly imples.

...

Whoa there horsefly, I asked why the JW's religious beliefs (That which makes them a JW, as opposed to a Southern Baptist or a Roman Catholic) better than anyone elses. They had no logical answer, just like yours. no reason, just assertion. Even at that, what makes any religion based upon the Bible any better than any other religion, in general? Because the Bible says so?

I can see that many people here really do believe in evolution theory. I respect that belief. I would like thought that you review the evidence in a neutral light. I consider myself an honest skeptic. I inspect the evidence closely like a cautious skeptic but when a conclusion becomes clear then I have to aspect it.

Evolutionists often try to portray doubters as ignorant and uneducated. We all know this is not a valid form of argument. It's also not true. Most doubters of evolution theory are highly educated and informed people. Now I may not have the highest of educations but I'm definitely well informed and well read. I always got strait As in biology class and engaged other students and even the teacher in debate. I was often the one doing the teaching. I even outlined theories to explain how all the evidence matches with the Bible. So these accusations just don't cut it.

Another tactic evolutions use is what I call deception by avoidance. Evolutionists often avoid the real issues where their positions get really weak. Very often they'll just flat out claim that you're ignoring the evidence. But of course they didn't present any evidence and don't really have anything to begin with. Let us now take a neutral look at the evidence draw some conclusions.

Evolution theory has some quite major problems. If you believe in evolution theory then here are some things you may not have thought about.

• Does it really make sense that apes would start to walk upright? This is supposed to have happened over millions of years. Just imagine it. For thousands of years apes would have walked around dragging their knuckles in the dirt. Then for thousands more years they walk around with their arms hanging in the air. Talk about a backache! Why do they go through all this effort? Would anyone have imagined such a thing if they were not trying to connect humans to apes? If walking around straining your back with your arms dangling in the air is so great then why aren't any other animals trying it now?

• Think about the complex built-in programs that migrating animals have. They travel thousands at just the rights times every year to keep things go. Think about the complex nest building and dam building animals. How can such things evolve? What good is half a dam or a tree cut half way down? How do these animals that can barely think perform these complex tasks without a built-in program from a Grand Designer?

• Consider this. The amino acids for life's proteins come left-handed and right-handed form. If these aminos got started at random then we should expect an even distribution of both types. But in fact, all of life's 20 amino acids are left-handed. Clear evidence of a Grand Designer's signature.

• Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. DNA needs pre-existing proteins. So which came first, the DNA or the proteins? The answer is must both, from a Grand Designer.

• Photosynthesis is a process so complex that scientists cannot even reproduce it. But it is thought by evolution theory that a cell just happen upon it by chance. Does not a Grand Designer make more sense?

• Complex forms suddenly appear in the fossil record with no intermediates inbetween. There are countless millions of fossils around the world. We now have a complete picture of how the history of life looks and there are huge gaps in the fossil record. How do evolutionists deal with this obvious problem? They propose that all the evolution happen between these fossils. How convenient. Perhaps we see the work of a Grand Designer.

• No fossils of giraffes have been found with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present.

• Humans are different from any other species that's ever lived. Humans have the ability to understand the world they live in. Humans create art and buildings and great wondrous things. We have all the tools needed achieve these goals. We have our expertly designed hands, our powerful brains, and many other complex features that set us apart... by chance? It could have happened to any other species according to evolution theory. But it just happened to happen to the species with all the tools to do these wonderful things. A massively improbable coincidence or a Grand Design?

The list goes on and on. Evolution theory says life forms evolved from other forms quite different than what we see today. All the amazing features and craftsmanship in nature are said to have come about through chance. Deep down this doesn't sound right at all and I'm sure you didn't like the idea when you first heard it. As an honest skeptic I have to follow the evidence where it leads. To a Grand Designer.

Since you're so intimately familiar with it, maybe you wouldn't mind giving us a high-level summary of the evidence for evolution.

...

Of course. First we have this classic fossil evidence. Then we have observed variations or mutations and the principle of heredity (or traits being passed down to children). The classic Darwin theory was built from these. And Charles Darwin made popular the idea that we all came from one or a few forms as he stated in his famous work the Origin of Species. But Darwin had trouble to get his theory accepted. Not because of his idea (the atheists loved the idea of everything evolved by itself from simple forms) but because it didn't work as science. They thought in Darwins times that traits were blended like paint and so heredity didn't make sense. But Darwin's theory make a comeback when Gregor Mendel discovered the truth about heredity. God designed us so that there would always be a variety in nature for us to enjoy, so that's why he designed heredity like he did. Mendel thought that there were just particles that were mixed and so that one trait or the other could have been passes along. Of course later we discovered that DNA is how it really works. We now know it's a huge complex super-computer-like (but far more brilliant) system with DNA and RNA and cells. It's far more complex than evolutionists hoped. But evolutionists didn't give up. They repacked their old worn out theory and called the new movement neo-Darwinism. So it's all these things together that evolutionists try to interpret in a evolutionary way. And that's the general evidence for evolution. What were you saying about me being uninformed?

...

Whoa! I thought you were going to summarize the evidence.

As I suspected, you don't have the faintest idea of what the evidence is beyond the generality of "this classic fossil evidence" (and you don't even say what it is about the fossil record that makes it evidence).

...

Everybody who is reading this - please pay attention. This is a good example of evolutionist tactics. I couldn't have asked for a better one. First we see the evolutionist boldly asserting that evolution has NO alternatives. Not even a few? Nope, NO alternatives. How about just one? Maybe space aliens made us? Nope - NO ALTERNATIVES. There's NO other possible explanation you silly Bible-boy! And that's that. Dictionary.com defines dogma as: "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." Could anyone have asked for a better example of evolutionist dogma? The idea is to shock and intemidate the listener. If he's so confident then he must be right... right? Not at all. It is obvious to all that above I was talking about evolution THEORY. So he comes along and says evolution is the ONLY explanation. But if you start to argue with him then like a snake he'll try to slither out of trouble's way. He'll say something like "Well gee what I meant was that just evolution is true. Evolution is just change and that's a fact. Tee hee." But it is obvious that I was talking about evolution theory and not just the fact of change. So let everyone see this perfect example of evolutionist trickery and term-switching.

Recently I had a lively exchange of idea with members of this newsgroup. We talked about the Genesis Creation Account and it's scientific accuracy. People asked some good questions. Some said that science shows things that are different than what the Bible says. But is this so? Let's take some examples.

• Does science show that light came before the earth? Yes. So why does the Genesis account talk about the earth before God created light? What we see from the Genesis account is that it is from the perspective of an observer on earth. So would it have made sense to the observer if events before the earth were talked about? No. From the observers perspective light would have been the first thing experienced on earth.

• Does science show that there was no firmament separating the waters above from the waters below? First we need to figure what the firmament (or expanse) is. Some critics try to discredit the Bible by claiming it supported the ancient myth that there was a dome over the earth. In Genesis 1:20 we see that bird flew across the firmament. How could they do this if the firmament is solid? It shows a clear understanding of the writer who knew that it was not solid. It must have been the atmosphere between the seas (waters below) and the clouds (waters above). If look at the sky on a cloudy day you'll see this yourself. The top of the clouds are poofy and the bottoms are fairly flat. This has to do with a division of atmospheric pressure and the weight of vapor particles. God of course was well aware of this.

• Does science show the earth was never covered in water? Perhaps. But Genesis does not directly say that. It alludes to their being lots of water over the earth being parted as land is rising out of it. Scientists now believe the same thing. They understand that land masses were much smaller and the earth used to be very wet and watery. How could Moses have known the conditions of the earth billions of years before he was even born? He must have gotten the knowledge from someone who knew.

• Does science show that land plants came after sea creatures? No. Scientists are only speculating. It is still unknown how life got started and which type of life came first. But according to Genesis the land plants were there first. So according to what we know for sure there is no contradiction.

• Does science show that the sun and moon and stars came before land plants? Yes. So why does the Genesis account have them here? It is wrong? It does say that God made them at this point. The answer is to remember that is from the perspective of an observer on earth. As scientists now know, to an observer on earth the sun and moon and stars would not be clearly discernable through the thick atmosphere during the primitive stages of earth. Apparently some time after land plants got started the atmosphere began to clear up as God "created" the sun and moon and stars. What wisdom this shows again. How could Moses have know about the conditions of earth so long ago?

• Does science show that flying creatures came after land creatures? No. Some scientists believe this because they cannot think of any other way the birds could have about. They suggest that small dinosaurs who walked on two feet began to form a lifestyle involving a lot of running around and jumping off things. They suggest that some of the small dinosaurs had a liiittle tiny bit more skin than the others and that they were more likely to survive jumping off things. Eventually after thousands and thousands of years these flaps of skin got bigger. Then after thousands more years their scales began to turn into feathers which would catch the wind better. They got lighter and lighter and could eventually glide. Then they started flapping their wings and growing beaks. It's all very interesting but one wonders why they didn't just stop jumping off things in the first place! The reason scientists invent such nonsensical ideas is to deny the truth in the Genesis account. Bird came before land animals and science has not shown anything different. If wild stories are proof then you can prove anything.

• Does science show that livestock came after man? No actually quite the opposite. There is much evidence that cows and pigs and other livestock came well before man. Such animals were clearly created for our use as meat. Anyone who's studied cows can see that they're nothing but slow four-legged steak houses. They're certainly not very well suited for winning in the survival of the fittest battle.

I know that this will not effect many people's opinion here on the Bible. No matter how much evidence you show a person they will not believe something they don't want to. But you cannot say that the Genesis creation account is not supported by modern science. No other creation account comes close. The Genesis account is grounded in realistic stages while other account have battles with gods and people being torn apart and other nonsensical ideas. Not the Bible. The Egyptians had all kinds of baseless ideas and dangerous medicinal practices. But not the Bible. Hebrew traditions were grounded in realistic super-advanced traditions like hygiene traditions. While Hebrews were burring their excrement and washing their hands the advanced Egyptians were making medicine out of it. All I ask is that you meditate on this and what it really means.

As of this writing, Nowhere Man has not returned to this thread -- currently topping 40 responses.

I am tired of boring old evolutionists tactics and discussion practices. I am tired of evolutionists escaping defeat by pretending like they don't understand your point. I am tired of evolutionists resorting to personal attacks instead of showing evidence. I've had many discussions with evolutionists and they are all the same. They are right and I am wrong. Reasoning doesn't even break their concentration. They just keep calling you stupid cutting up your posts into little tiny pieces so that they don't have to respond to your overall theme of logic. I'm tired of it all and it's time to put an end to it. I have been thinking of a way to stop it and show up evolutionists for what they are. The solution is in the form of a challenge. I challenge an evolutionist to a fair discussion. Here are the rules...

1. I choose the topic of debate.

2. The discussion will be between me and one evolutionist.

3. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited.

4. Illogical statements are strictly prohibited.

5. References must be given for evidence that is not common-knowledge.

6. All major points must be responded to.

7. Responses must be paragraph by paragraph. No chopping up paragraphs.

8. There will be three judges who will oversee the discussion. They will be responsible for making sure that the discussion is fair.

9. If any rule is broken a discusser can ask for a "judgment call". The judges will then vote if the rule has really been broken. If it has then the violator will be forced to fix his mistake. If the violator refuses to fix his mistake he is disqualified.

10. The discussion will end when the loosing person has no choice but to admit defeat. This will be called "checkmate" because the person has no options left but to repeat himself. This is an important rule.

11. Dana Tweedy cannot be the debater.

There will be nowhere for the evolutionist to hide from the power of reason. I imagine some of you are trembling at the thought of a fair discussion. But maybe there's someone out there bold enough to take me on without the security of their shallow tactics. Choosing the judges is one problem I thought of. You're all going to want judges who only care about evolution winning and I'm going to want neutral fair judges. If one judge is an evolutionist and the other is not then what will the third one be? I am confident enough in my discussion skills that I will give you the third judge. Besides if the evolutionists team up together it will become very apparent to those reading and end will be put to it. So there you have it. You have two options. You can decline my challenge and show everyone you really do rely on shallow tactics to appear as though you win debates or you can accept the challenge, choose a debater and put together a judge panel of two evolutionists and one non-evolutionist. What do you say?

Debate Topic: Human Origins

NM will argue that mankind was a special creation. The first man was a distinct species, created perfect, about 6,000 years ago. The Biblical Adam & Eve were the first human couple and have since propagated the entire human race. The current imperfections in mankind (including ageing and death) are a direct result of God withdrawing his holy spirit, or active force from mankind after Adam's original sin. NM will argue that the evidence is most consistent with this view.

His opponent will argue that mankind has descended, by way of the current scientific view of evolution, from a common ancestor with modern primate species. The most recent common ancestor of all mankind is substantially older than 6,000 years. Mankind was not a special creation and is another branch on the tree of life. The current imperfections in mankind (including ageing and death) are due to imperfect blind evolutionary processes. His opponent will argue that the evidence is most consistent with this view.

(Subject to clarifacation by Lilith)

Clarifications

The debate will not be over which view actually happened. The debate will be over which view is the most consistent with the evidence and therefore is the best explanation. The Bible will be considered in a historical context only and will not be considered as divinely inspired.

Rules

1. Good discussion & ethical guidelines should be held.

1a. No personal attacks.

1b. No illogical statements.

1c. No arguments from authority.

1d. No arguments from incredulity. (I can't believe that...)

1e. Definitions should be presented for all terms.

1f. References should be presented for new evidence.

2. The debate structure should be followed.

2a. Debate should remain between the two debaters.

2b. Only statements within the debate thread and between the debaters should be considered. Posts from those outside the debate should be ignored and do not effect the actual debate.

2c. Only one response is allowed per opponent response. The debate will be an exchange of posts.

2d. One major point is allowed paragraph. An exception can be made if two points can only be stated together.

2e. The responder should reply to each paragraph in it's entirety without separating paragraph text.

2f. Each major point should be responded to.

2g. Although only the two debaters are allowed to participate in the debate, they may call on outside resources for help. This includes both natural and supernatural entities.

2h. Responders will be allowed up to one week to respond. (although, I doubt anyone will have to wait that long) oops!

3. Three judges will oversee and moderate the debate.

3a. At any time a responder may ask for a "judgment call". This should be done *before* he makes his actual response to his opponent. This should be a separate post where he should state the rule he believes is being broken and shows the relevant text. Both parties should wait silently for a ruling. After all three judges have ruled, the discussion will continue.

3aI. If the ruling is in the favor of the defendant, the plaintiff continue and respond to the post as normal.

3aII. If the ruling is in the favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff should wait for the defendant to correct his mistake. This defendant should repost his entire offending post with the corrected text in place.

3b. If at any time a debater adamantly refuses to adhere to a ruling of the judges, the debater will be disqualified and shown unfit for debate.

3c. If a debater feels 1) the opponent has repeated an invalid point and 2) the debater has no original points regarding the topic discussion, he may call "check". The responder must cover all points in the "check" post as usual and must also provide an original response to the checked point as well.

3cI. After a response has been made, if the debater feels the new point is not original, he may call "checkmate". The responder is given another chance to generate a new approach to the topic. Both debaters must then wait for the judges to rule on the checkmate. If the judges rule against the defendant, he has lost.

Evidence

Evidence must be factual and empirical. It must be factual in the sense that it is shown beyond reasonable doubt. It must be empirical in the sense that the observation can be repeated by others. Vague memories, stories from parents, things heard from friends, and orange colored books do not qualify.

Before this debate is over I will have demonstrated how the most plausible explanation for human origins is creation. Before I can do that we need to review all the general data. I hope that we can end this debate before having to go into the details.

Post 1

On my part, I hope we can spend as much time on the details as necessary.

Reply 1, Part 1

Reply 1, Part 2

Reply 1, Part 3

Post 2, Part 1

Post 2, Part 2

Post 2, Part 3

Reply 2, Part 1

Reply 2, Part 2

Reply 2, Part 3

This is about the debate....

I have had pressing matters and could not give a good reply in time. I was not able to read the whole responce. It's very long and I'm still working on it. This is going to be very complicated because of the size Lillith has made the posts. But I will finish as soon as I can.

Can you give us an estimate as to how much longer you expect your reply to take?

Ok I'm going to have to ask for Lilith to correct a number of errors and fix some things before I can reply. The judges can evaluate my requests and if they seem reasonable then Lilith should fix them before I reply.

...

...

That is all for these posts. I would like to thank the judges for their time and apologize for Lilith's behavior. I will respond to all the points after the judges have ruled on Lilith's behavior and after she has made the needed corrections.

The requests for judgement are noted.

The plan at the moment is that we will discuss the requests among ourselves via email, and when we are done a single ruling will be issued. Given the various time zone and schedule differences involved, this process may take a few days.

I have been at work on replying to Lillith but it is taking a lot of time to read her many posts and look up the all the links. I have not given up as some people would like to think. The problem is that this takes time because of the size of the posts and I have been busy. I will reply as quick as I can.

I don't care how long you take, the judges might want to have a say in it.

Speaking personally, I would like nothing more than to see this debate come to an end. I am not happy with Nowhere Man's conduct up to this point, especially with regard to this last series of posts. He went over his allotted time in posting his last "reply", without asking for permission before hand. He did not offer anyone thanks when the time was extended. When it arrived, his post was only his requests for judgement. (I still do not understand how putting that together took as long as it did.) Not a single one of his fourteen claims involved an issue central to the debate, and many of them were trivial and nit-picking in the opinion of all three judges. Dispite all that, he had the unmitigated gall to apologize to the judges for Lilith's conduct. He has gone over time yet again, and yet again failed to inform anyone before the deadline. He has posted a statement that he will conclude his reply as soon as he can, but has not bothered to ask for an extension, or even to use such words as "please" and "thank you". Were it up to me, this debate would be over.

However, the standing policy of the judges is that the decision of whether or not to allow Nowhere Man more time rests entirely with Lilith. We will not intervene in this or any other issue unless one or another of the two participants specifically requests that we issue a ruling. If Lilith wants to allow Nowhere Man more time, she can. If she wants to end the "debate" based on Nowhere Man's clear violation of the time rule, she can request that the judges issue a ruling ending the debate in her favor on those grounds -- and, based on the clear evidence and the rules that Nowhere Man himself proposed, we would have no choice but to do so. Whether or not the debate continues rests entirely on Lilith's goodwill towards Nowhere Man.

He might want to consider that the next time he is tempted to apologize for her conduct instead of his own.

If the debate is called off NM will most likely resume claiming that evolutionists get out of debate by using unfair tactics. If I was a creationist lurker I might be believe him. It might appear to me that she was simply trying to overwhelm him with information so she could get out of debate on time issues. If the debate continues he won't have anything to complain about. They're his rules after all.

I would like the debate to be over but not on a technicality. Only if NM refuses to cooperate will I issue such a vote. It's not taking any time away from my life to give him more time. I pretty much share Lilith's view. Let's hear his explanation. Give him all the time he needs.

How about the following:

1. The judges contact Nowhere Man and tell him he was 14 days to respond to Lilith, otherwise he will have been deemed to have lost the debate.

2. If the 14 days elapse, the judges should announce their decision and make a short summary of the events (not arguments) in the debate, which could become a mini-FAQ for the archive. Future creationists could be referred to this if they decide to take part in subsequent challenges.

Obviously the judges should be in at least majority agreement, and Lilith should have the final say. I appreciate her willingness to give NM more time, but I nevertheless feel it would be useful to have a documented version of a debate in which a creationist talked big, then turned tail and fled.

Am I wallowing in apathy if I say I don't care either way?

But some people have politely asked (like the lovely Ms. Susan S) that I end the debate, the coup de gras, etc.

To incorporate everyone's requests (and isn't that a nightmare), why don't we do this (and do the judges agree?)

Give NWM another three weeks to set a FINAL DATE (deadline) by which he'll next post. The deadline should be set for reply within the next two months, period. Any further extension beyond that is cruel and unusual punishment to the edge-sitters. Therefore, the judges can email him asking him to set a deadline for reply within the next two months.

• If he does not reply to the request within three weeks, we'll close the debate, write it up, post it, with all the appropriate documentation, and allow the debate to be OFFICIALLY opened at a later date assuming: 1. we can find judges, 2. I'm still animate.

• If he does reply and sets a deadline within the next two months by which he'll reply, we wait until that deadline. If he does not meet the deadline, then we also note this in the final outcome of the debate.

Sounds good? Too much extension? Flames, comments?

This is not fair. Your tactict is to drown me in messages so I can't respond. Then when there's no time for me to write a responce you try to end the debate. Instead of wanting an honest and fair debate you just abuse the spirit of the rules and try to call everything. If you do then you can be ashured that you did not really win. You can only win the debate by addressing the real arguements. Now your making me respond to post after post filled with filler. It's not fair and I'm doing my best to respond. I am a busy person and this is the best I can do. Just remember if you call off the debate you did not really win.