GarthP2000

I just had to laugh at the "encroaching upon them" (the meteors and other celestial entities) line. I mean, here we are, human beings occupying a planet about 8,000 miles in diameter, and the meteors occupy, what, ... the rest of space? Which is what, ohhh, infinity in measurement? :unsure: So we're 'encroaching' on them by sending up satellites? Not to worry, folks. The meteors are gonna still be raining upon this earth for millions and millions of years to come. I do agree with the point about the 'light pollution', tho'. Blocks out w-a-y too much of what we could see of the stars and stuff. <_<

:unsure: Huh?

But that's what they are were doing. ... Be leaving.

Socks, I got your point. I got your point earlier. And others' points. Ie., the link was a rather poor means of discounting what PFAL said about the matter, or even what religion said about the matter. But I believe I mentioned other things *besides* that link, bringing to light things which were at least as ridiculous as the link I provided. And no, I don't expect anyone here to 'throw their bible to the ground'. But I wouldn't expect people to 'throw science to the ground' either, particularly when science happens to challenge their beliefs about a certain topic, the one about creation. Ok? So you can stop your rather condescending humor about pterodactyls and such already. <_<

Potato, Selective? I'll show you selective. Your last post even portrays this. You continue to attempt to link evolution with atheism or a POV that is 'anethemic' to a creator God, and your attempts are quite 'selective' in doing so. As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection. Period. End of story. Tell that to all the Christians (including that Christian judge in Dover PA who ruled in evolution's favor regarding that school board case) who accept evolution as a scientific fact or at least as scientifically sound. Perhaps they view evolution as God's means of bringing about creation. Perhaps what they are 'reactionary' to is how some folks treat the book that supposedly tells about God in such a literally strict manner, particularly about how this earth came about. Ya think?

... looks straight outta Wizard of Oz, too. :)

Socks, Yeah, I guess you're right. I could have posted a link that was a LOT better example of disputing PFAL and Creationism (Doc Vic's version or any other). I stand by everything else I said tho. ... Stubborn mo' fo', ain't I?

Wordwolf, Ok, so I stand corrected/informed as to that you're not a Young Earth Creationist. And evidently you don't believe in the Old Earth Creationism posited by VPW. So what is it that you do believe then? And how is it that evolution does not apply? And my apologies with the labeling/presumption. See, in my so-called 'presumptions' about Creationists, all I ever heard about them, and usually from them, was the 2 varieties, Old Earth and Young Earth. The difference basically being in that the Old Earth variety was that there was this 'gap' between verse 1 and 2 of the first chapter in Genesis that allowed for all the prehistoric animals/cavemen and the like. The only other 'variety' is the more obscure Intelligent Design in which God is unidentifiable, and their theories are quite vague. But as to my "So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.", you're being sloppy yourself in your reading comprehension there. Look at the 2nd word. "If". And its referring to the (rather poor) interpretation of my post as simply 'flipping the finger'. I acknowledged that my link post wasn't perhaps the best one, but I believe I explained why I posted it. And it isn't according to some simplistic interpretation of 'flipping off the evolutionary crowd'. I have other reasons than that to flip some of them off, as it were, not the least of which is their dogged fear of science telling them that maybe, just maybe, their literal interpretation of their Holy Book is wrong about the physical science in regards to how the earth/universe got started. Now those folks so-o NEED to be flipped off. And since you're one of the Creationists who has some significantly intelligent approach to science, for every one of you, I can easily point out at least 2-3 other Creationists who has a less intellectually honest or ignorant approach to selfsame science, sometimes ones that would 'curl your hair'. And all because they are afraid to question or take an independent look as to something that runs the risk of saying "The biblical account isn't scientific nor accurate." ... I mean talk about something that is hideously sloppy in thinking skills!! Want to see an example of said sloppiness right here in this thread? How about the following illustrated by Potato: "... on the evolutionist side, they start with the premise "God did not create" ...". Talk about sloppy thinking/presumptions! (And no, this isn't accusing Potato of sloppy thinking, just the line he showed in his post.) So many people presume that evolution yanks out God as the creator/maker, "God did not create...". Evolution does no such thing. It does not address the point either way, nor attempts to. It just addresses the physical _how_ of the earth's beginning and natural selection. Yet a lot of people try to 'turn into a form of atheism' the theory of evolution, in addition to a lot of other ridiculous assumptions about it. So, instead of viewing what I'm posting as 'flipping the finger', consider this more of an expression of exasperation of sorts. ----- Socks, Love ya man, but go pull your own finger, if this is the only thing you can come back with. :P

Impossible crossbreeds ehh? How about pineapple and pizza? ((ducking))

Let's just say that my 'rules of evidence' doesn't include some blind appeal to authority in acceptance of the scriptures/other sources of spirituality when it comes to proving/illustrating things true. Ie., I am *done* with "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word!" mentality, as well as the "Just take it by Faith brother!" variety. ... And I have found a helluva lot of mental freedom in doing so.

Good point Waysider. What I forgot to mention is in reference to when no matter is involved to interfere with the speed of light, which is (largely) the case in space, where there is vacuum in the vast majority of space. The way Dr. Hovind portrays it, however, is that light slows down by itself due to its (supposed) mass, and as I pointed out earlier, light is massless.

Oh, and for those who want to pull VPW's Old Earth version of Creationism out of the hat to explain it, you know, how that the universe was created billions of years ago, the 'rebellion in heaven' screwed that all up (where the earth became "without form and void"), and how God put all that back together again in the 6 days, ... you still have a problem. Whether you go by the Young Earth Creationist theory, or the Old Earth Creationist theory, in *both* of those theories, the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets (according to the scriptures) were made _after_ the "without form and void" part and God started with the "Let there be ..." operations as shown in the first chapter in Genesis. And the age of the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are ALL proven to be a LOT older than 6,000 years. 'Cold science' huh?

Wordwolf, Really? Then how does the overwhelming evidence of the earth/universe being FAR older than 6,000 years fit in with this 'cold science' of Creationism? How about proven measured distances of stars from earth? The total lack of the water that is (supposedly) on the other side of 'expanse' talked about in Genesis? Speaking of questionable 'experts', ever hear of Dr. Kenneth Hovind? Do a Google on him. Look at all the 'theories' that he came up with, all in support of Creationism. For example, do you know that, in order to explain away the fact about how stars are many hundreds of thousands to billions of light years from earth, he says that light actually slows down as it travels, due of course to the laws of inertia and the like. Interesting, except that light particles has no mass, no weight with which to have the laws of inertia take effect on it. ... And this clown is one of the primary standards used in the Creationist world. And yet, the main motivation of many Creationists is the maintainance of the validity, the integrity, the 'truth' of their scriptures, and from such, their religious beliefs. Along comes a theory (like the theory of evolution), viable tho' it may be, that challenges that, and they are up in arms about it. So please spare me the line about the basis for Creationism being one of scientific inquiry and proof. The main (if not only) interest they have is making sure that the Bible/scripture remains inviolate. I oughtta know. ... I used to believe in that mentality regarding the evolution/Creationist argument. Been there, done that. <_< So the link that I posted is premature, probably even flawed in its conclusion. When I came across that link, I thought back to what we were taught in PFAL about Mendal's Law and "everything according to its own kind" and how that was taught like it was irrefutable science, and I just laughed. Because I see the similarity between VPW's presentation, and many Creationists desperately grabbing onto any 'scientific' source they could (like Hovind) to go "See? See? Told you the account in Genesis was scientifically true!", based on their need to keep their belief in the Bible account safe from being dismantled. So if I am to look the fool for posting such a questionable link, how many Creationists should be shown as fools for latching on to their questionable 'experts' to try to prop up Creationism? Hell, remember that judge in Dover, PA who threw out their case, and then gave them a tongue lashing for their questionable presentation? ... And he's a conservative Christian. So if that is my version of 'the finger', so be it.

Perhaps this is a hoax. Perhaps. But I read with amusement some of the responses here, particularly coming from the Creationist side. Not to worry my friends. This won't do neither here nor there in verifying evolution or not. But looking at the whole picture going over the years and decades, evolution seems to be getting more and more evidence pointing its way, and Creationism/'Intelligent' Design seems to be getting less and less. And the march in that direction is showing no sign of slowing down.

Interesting. ... Perhaps what he says 'betrays a deeply erroneous understanding' of why a good number of people choose not to have children. At the very least, he is making a broad brush assumption as to why they (all or most) don't. Besides, I always wondered what business is it of the Church (Catholic _or_ Protestant), or even of it's God, how many children a couple has. Why not totally leave it for the couple to decide, and that's that? P.S., An aside Mark. Why is it that the Catholic Church is against contraception, or at the least artificial contraception? I never could understand that precept of theirs.

Ya know, it's amazing how _human_ atheists can wind up being to people once you get to know them. Just as human, moral, caring, willing to fight for their country, and even downright friendly as anybody who believes in any god. That's one big hurdle I got over once I got to meet and get to know them. ... Hurdle of ignorance, that is. Just amazing.

Elephino = Hell if I know? ;)

ok. Good point. I guess we'll wait and see what gives here.

what about those little puppies who had cat-like claws? And please don't tell me that they were due to demonic possession please. I dropped that song-and-dance long ago. <_<

Hey folks, Remember when Doc Vic taught us that, according to Mendel's Law (or whatever law that he taught that its "everything according to its own kind")? Remember the part in the class where he said according to this, that you can't get a catty-dog or a doggy-cat" because you just cannot mix the 2 genuses? Here's a story that will make you do a double take. Everything according to its own kind being inviolate, huh? Catty-dog? Is this wild, or not? :blink: Talk about something that yanks Yet Another Plank out of the Creationist platform according to TWI.

..... ahhh, but you know what 'they' say about Cheech & Chong now, doncha? (Pass the bong, please)

... or you could drop your drawers, turn your 'business' end towards the screen, and ........ ... :ph34r:

warning: Nowadays I have to laugh every time I hear/see that, as now I know the *REAL* 'reason for the season', and it ain't Jesus birth. How many of us here have heard that the Christmas holiday was lifted/borrowed/stolen from the Winter Solstice holidays of the various pagan cultures? Hell, many of the symbols we associate with Christmas come directly from said pagan holidays. And of course, we _know_ that Jesus wasn't born around Dec. 25th for various seasonal reasons. Now just because the Church heisted the holiday and 'claimed it for Jesus' doesn't automatically make it theirs, historically as well as ethically. Anywho, back to our regularly scheduled Elton John discussion.

Why should he? Since when was Christmas (which is celebrated by believer and non-believer alike, for different reasons across the board) synonymous and identical with religion? Particularly the kind of religion that slams homosexuality? :unsure:

Hmmm, Sure sounded like 'gold' when I listened to it. ... Maybe it reflects what I think of those who sell their religion. And yep, that was one of the classic tunes of that era, one of many that Elton did. He seemed to focus on more of the glitz n' glamor in his later years tho, and in doing so lost some of his earlier creativity. But then again, mebbe that's what usually happens with musical artists. They start out creative and free, and then progress to either getting too big for their britches, or they sell out to making some corporate jingles for commercials. ((sigh)) :( And then again, mebbe it's just me, harking back to the 'good ol' days' of the 60s-mid 70s. ... Y'know, when good music was made.