Bible Discussion: Talk.origins Banned Content Thread : Are JW's Creationists?

Talk.origins Banned Content Thread : Are JW's Creationists?
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Jabriol
2003-08-02 10:44:23 EST


From: Chris Krolczyk (chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Subject: Talk.Origins - Credible? ..a


> "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Your position is *entirely identical* with young-earth creationism,
> > so what are you getting at?
> no it is not,

Not that it's relevant here, but...

You're a Jehovah's Witness, correct?

(jabriol replies:"yes")
---------------------------------------------------

Their position is that the Bible
is the literal historical account of how the universe and earth were
created, correct?

(jabriol replies:"wrong" There is nothing in the Genesis account of how
the Universe was created, nor is there a fixed time refrence
established. Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any reader. This same
order is very close to science opinions and theories It is the
creationist who take genesis literal)
--------------------------------------------------------

If there's ever been any deviation from this POV
indicated in any of your posts (from your own words to the Watchtower
Tracts you were fond of posting), I don't remember it.


(jabriol replies:" you can't remember what you seriously do not read")



John Ings
2003-08-02 12:45:37 EST
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:44:23 -0400, jabriol
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

> Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
>planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any reader. This same
>order is very close to science opinions and theories

No it is not! The order given in Genesis 1 isn't even approximately
the same order science finds evident in the rocks of the earth.

And the Watchtower prints Young Earth Creationist propaganda.
I have a copy of one of their tracts on the subject in my library.

## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt



Jabriol
2003-08-02 13:51:01 EST

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:tdqniv8ip3mt6eehcmt9tah8ac7760r7t2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:44:23 -0400, jabriol
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> > Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
> >planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any reader. This same
> >order is very close to science opinions and theories
>
> No it is not! The order given in Genesis 1 isn't even approximately
> the same order science finds evident in the rocks of the earth.
>

yeah rocks...sure.. ye have to update your geology.


> And the Watchtower prints Young Earth Creationist propaganda.
> I have a copy of one of their tracts on the subject in my library.

yup pull it out and tell us the title of the tract.

>
> ## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
>
>

well evolution is faith. as with religion, it can not be proved by the
scientific method
speculation on speculation with good imagination.



John Ings
2003-08-02 14:24:11 EST
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:51:01 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> > Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
>> >planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any reader. This same
>> >order is very close to science opinions and theories
>>
>> No it is not! The order given in Genesis 1 isn't even approximately
>> the same order science finds evident in the rocks of the earth.
>>
>
>yeah rocks...sure.. ye have to update your geology.

I know my geology. Genesis 1 has the wrong order.
Trees were did not appear before fish but long after. Flying things
did not appear before beasts of the field, nor did flowering and
fruit-bearing trees.

>> And the Watchtower prints Young Earth Creationist propaganda.
>> I have a copy of one of their tracts on the subject in my library.
>
>yup pull it out and tell us the title of the tract.

"Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?"
(Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.,
1985)

On pages 36-37 it states--

"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: [...] Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this 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."

A specious argument, since science does not agree that the 10 major
stages listed occured in the order given. Was the author ignorant of
that fact or lying . . . ?

>> ## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
>>
>well evolution is faith.

Evolution is an observed fact.

>as with religion, it can not be proved by the
>scientific method

It doesn't have to be proven if it's observed. Darwin never did
propose a theory that evolution happens. His theory was about how and
why it happens.


>speculation on speculation with good imagination.

"In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact' -
part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory
to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument:
evolution is 'only' a theory and intense debate now rages about many
aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and
scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what
confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this
argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I
devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): 'Well, it is a theory. It is a
scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in
the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific
community to be as infallible as it once was.'
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing
certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when
scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved
from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists
often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they
themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such
a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility
does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and
theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
evolution."

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


## Miracle owes its origin to the negation of thought.



Gblack
2003-08-02 16:11:51 EST


"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f2bd0d5$0$255$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
:
: "John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
: news:tdqniv8ip3mt6eehcmt9tah8ac7760r7t2@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:44:23 -0400, jabriol
: > <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
: >
: > > Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
: > >planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any reader.
This same
: > >order is very close to science opinions and theories
: >
: > No it is not! The order given in Genesis 1 isn't even
approximately
: > the same order science finds evident in the rocks of the earth.
: >
:
: yeah rocks...sure.. ye have to update your geology.
:
:
: > And the Watchtower prints Young Earth Creationist propaganda.
: > I have a copy of one of their tracts on the subject in my library.
:
: yup pull it out and tell us the title of the tract.
:
: >
: > ## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
: >
: >
:
: well evolution is faith. as with religion, it can not be proved by
the
: scientific method
: speculation on speculation with good imagination.

Evolution is theory not faith.
theory is used to explain
faith is used to deny


--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/




Libertarius
2003-08-02 17:23:19 EST


jabriol wrote:

>
>
> From: Chris Krolczyk (chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com)
> Subject: Re: Subject: Talk.Origins - Credible? ..a
>
> > "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Your position is *entirely identical* with young-earth creationism,
> > > so what are you getting at?
> > no it is not,
>
> Not that it's relevant here, but...
>
> You're a Jehovah's Witness, correct?
>
> (jabriol replies:"yes")
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Their position is that the Bible
> is the literal historical account of how the universe and earth were
> created, correct?
>
> (jabriol replies:"wrong" There is nothing in the Genesis account of how
> the Universe was created, nor is there a fixed time refrence
> established.

===>Now THAT is funny!
Genesis 1 clearly states that it was all done in SIX DAYS,
and that the "universe" consists of the land, the sea, a solid
sky dome above which there is more water, and little lights
affixed to that dome (stars).

Libertarius
==========


John Wilkins
2003-08-02 19:46:04 EST
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from "Tom"
> <mmman_90@yahoo.com>:
>
> >Speaking of talkorigins, has anyone had a post from the TO group in the last
> >day or so?
>
> No. Nor can you contact the server via email.

I just saw a post there. The server must have been down, and is now back
up. Same for s.b.e, which uses the same server.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography

Philip Deitiker
2003-08-03 12:11:34 EST
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> says in
news:tdqniv8ip3mt6eehcmt9tah8ac7760r7t2@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:44:23 -0400, jabriol
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> Genesis just direct orientation as to modification of our
>>planet, in a certain order, which should sastified any
>>reader. This same order is very close to science opinions
>>and theories
>
> No it is not! The order given in Genesis 1 isn't even
> approximately the same order science finds evident in the
> rocks of the earth.
>
> And the Watchtower prints Young Earth Creationist
> propaganda. I have a copy of one of their tracts on the
> subject in my library.
>
> ## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt

Discussions of faith, religion, creationism are off-topic in
s.a.p. Please note the groups Jabby crosses to in the NG line
and please remove them when your followups are off-topic.

Don't be a Jabby dupe.


John Ings
2003-08-03 16:42:05 EST
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:11:34 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<*k@worlnet.att.net> wrote:

>Discussions of faith, religion, creationism are off-topic in
>s.a.p. Please note the groups Jabby crosses to in the NG line
>and please remove them when your followups are off-topic.
>
>Don't be a Jabby dupe.

You can't ignore these idiots and hope they'll go away Philip. The
scientific community has been doing that for decades now and as a
result Creationism has gained a strong foothold with the voting
public. They're electing their people to your local schoolboard. They
have to be shown up for the liars they are wherever they appear.

Yes it's true that no one will ever convince the Jabbies of anything,
but there are lurkers who can be duped by their stuff, even in s.a.p.
Jabby needs to be shot down on scientific issues wherever he shows up.

## Pia mendacia fraude




Jabriol
2003-08-03 19:09:14 EST

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F2C2BC7.868FFF1@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
>
>
> jabriol wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > From: Chris Krolczyk (chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com)
> > Subject: Re: Subject: Talk.Origins - Credible? ..a
> >
> > > "Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > Your position is *entirely identical* with young-earth creationism,
> > > > so what are you getting at?
> > > no it is not,
> >
> > Not that it's relevant here, but...
> >
> > You're a Jehovah's Witness, correct?
> >
> > (jabriol replies:"yes")
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Their position is that the Bible
> > is the literal historical account of how the universe and earth were
> > created, correct?
> >
> > (jabriol replies:"wrong" There is nothing in the Genesis account of how
> > the Universe was created, nor is there a fixed time refrence
> > established.
>
> ===>Now THAT is funny!
> Genesis 1 clearly states that it was all done in SIX DAYS,
> and that the "universe" consists of the land, the sea, a solid
> sky dome above which there is more water, and little lights
> affixed to that dome (stars).
>
> Libertarius
> ==========

Then I would suggest you read Genesis again. And remember it was not written
by William Shakespear... this should give you a clue.

>


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron