Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Deeje]

Wait.....are you really unaware that people believe in other creators besides the one you believe in? Are you really under the impression that if someone doesn't believe in the Jehovah's Witness God, then that person must be an atheist?

What other people believe or disbelieve is entirely up to them. No one can tell us what to believe. That comes from our own heart, so what we end up accepting is what determines our worthiness for what God is offering. If you think its nonsense, then so be it.

I believe that the God of the Bible is the only true God....if you don't believe that, then that is your prerogative. It is not my job to convert you....only to enlighten you. Accept the message or reject it.....God's purpose will go ahead with us or without us.

 

[Deeje]

Does it have to?

Yes. If God had used evolution he would have told a different story in Genesis. It is quite detailed in a simple kind of way. It gives us the order of creation in the stream of time. Never does it say that the earth was created immediately before creation began. We are obviously living on an old earth with ancient creatures that once inhabited it. Genesis does not disagree with that. It just tells us what creatures were around when Adam and his wife were finally created. Even science knows that man arrived last.

Sure, he COULD do that - but the overwhelming evidence indicates that's not what happened - unless you believe that God crafted individual creatures to their own satisfaction and then immediately killed them off and replaced them with other, similar creatures and then killing them off, and then repeating this process millions of times over billions of years.

Refining a creative process is what I believe is seen. Not killing off one species to create another. We as humans possess the Creator's qualities, but not his power. We often refine the things we design to make them better or more appealing. Sometimes we have to scrap something and start again. Creative individuals do this. I am an artist, so I know that is true. Some things require improvement and some things need to go back to scratch because they don't quite measure up to expectation.

The fact that the creative "days" ended with an expression of God's satisfaction with his efforts tells us something important.....that the Creator does not rest until he has achieved what he wants to do, to his own satisfaction, and in his own time. (Isaiah 55:11)

The seventh day in Genesis is without a declaration for a very good reason...it has not yet ended. But with what the Bible describes as the "conclusion of the age" comes the 1,000 year reign of God's kingdom, restoring all that humanity lost at the start. At the end of that time period, after one final test, again God will be able to declare the seventh day..."very good". From that time onward, God's future plans can go ahead unimpeded. Free will is retained and respected as the gift God intended it to be and all that the Creator does from that time onward will be without any rebels hindering his progress.

I so often hear about all this "overwhelming evidence" that turns out to be an overwhelming amount of speculation, suggestion and wishful thinking when you examine the actual evidence. The power of suggestion is what drives evolutionary science and anyone who reads what these scientists write will see it very clearly, unless they have their blinkers on. Most assume that evolution is irrefutably true, so they never question the "science". They should.

Why couldn't God have just set the wheel in motion, knowing where it was going to end up, and what appears to us by all accounts to be the process of evolution is to God merely the natural result of his creative process?

To suggest such a thing reveals that you have no notion of God's original purpose, what went wrong, and how God solved the problem, whilst still keeping his original purpose on track. It reveals why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

This is just baseless nonsense.

I'm sorry but that statement is baseless nonsense.

Based on this, you clearly don't understand how evolution functions.

Or perhaps it is you who don't understand a clever deception when when you see one?

And the fact that evolution doesn't mention direct intervention from a creator is irrelevant -

Do you expect it to? I don't recall saying that it was.

God isn't mentioned in germ theory, atomic theory of gravitation theory either, because science by its very function is naturalistic and cannot assume a casual, supernatural agent. That doesn't mean one could not have been involved and science is just unable to detect them. Your lack of imagination doesn't make it impossible.

You seem unable to see science as something God created for intelligent minds to study.
If there was no Creator, then all this matter that we call the universe, would not exist. If people don't believe that things can get "poofed" into existence, then where did the material universe come from? Science seems to agree that it was an almighty act that formed what we see out there. What kind of power could create such a monumentally huge and complex thing with no intelligence required to direct any of it?

And if there is no first cause, then where did life itself come from? Again, it could not have just accidentally happened and transformed itself into all the life forms we see.....with no intelligent direction guiding it. Can there be a fusion between the two versions of how life came to be, as you seem to suggest? If you believe that, then may I suggest that your fantasy is way bigger than mine? The Creator tells us how he created.....if you don't want to believe him, then that is up to you. But if you believe in God, then why do you need evolution as your answer?
Why can't God just be the Creator he claims to be?

Speciation has been directly observed multiple times.

Whose word are you taking for that? What has been observed is variety within a species. No "speciation" has ever occurred that turned one kind of creature into another at any time.
Tell me what experiments with speciation ever did that.

Nothing. What if you're wrong and the ancient Greeks were right? You'll have a very red face when you're carried down the river Styx to the underworld.

I guess we will just have to wait and see, won't we?
I am confident about the existence of my God through personal interaction with him, and through through his guidance concerning my brotherhood and their activities in the world. What about you?

 

[Sapiens]

Tell me what experiments with speciation ever did that.

By Chris Stassen

ere is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348


By James Meritt
Someone writes:

I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

By Anneliese Lilje
Just a smattering of a huge database of articles (1991 only):

1. Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.
2. Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
3. Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
4. Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.
5. Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.
6. Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.
7. Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

... on and on to about #50 if you like...

There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my database.

By L. Drew Davis
A List of Speciation References

• Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.
• Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
• Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.
  Abstract: Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.
• Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.
• Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.
• Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.
  Abstract:
  
  The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland, indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers.
• Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.
  Abstract: J.A. Coyne wrongly asserted that neodarwinism includes allopatric evolution but not sympatric evolution. Allopatric evolution occurs among geographically isolated populations, whereas sympatric evolution occurs within one species' entire population. Both are neodarwinian since each results from natural selection of genetic variation. Also, Coyne failed to recognize that the molecular models used to illustrate how genetic changes bring on speciation are most useful when researchers acknowledge that both inherited epigenetic and genetic changes affect speciation.
• Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.
• Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.
• Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.
• Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.
• Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.
• Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
• Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.
• Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.
• Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.
• Barton, N.H. Jones, J.S. Mallet, J. No barriers to speciation. (morphological evolution). Nature. V336. P13(2) Nov 3, 1988.
• Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988

 

[Sapiens]

From talk.origins
A talk.origins participant writes:

1) Speciation occured in a strain of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963 in Theodosius Dobzhansky's lab. He wrote this up in:

Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field. Science 177:664-669
2) A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon. The citing is:

Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553
3) In the 1940's a fertile species was produced through chromosome doubling (allopolyploidy) in a hybrid of two primrose species. The new species was Primula kewensis. The story is recounted in:

Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. Columbia University Press. New York
4) Finally, two workers produced reproductive isolation between two strains of fruit flies in a lab setting within 25 generations. I don't have the paper handy, so I can't give the species. The partial citing of the paper is:

Rice and Salt 1988. American Naturalist 131:911-
Dobzhansky got a subpopulation of D. paulistorum to speciate in his lab. The reference is:

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292
See also:

Weinberg, et. al, 1992 Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory, Evolution 46: 1214. (This isn't a full paper, just a note -- it describes what is probably speciation of a type of polychaete worm.)Another talk.origins participant writes:

There are two distinct strains of Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly. One infests the apple, the other the hawthorn. They have different breeding times--as the fruits flower at different times--and so they do not interbreed in the real world. I do not know if they could interbreed in the laboratory. Since the fly is not found in Europe, and the apple is an import from Europe, the only presumption is that the apple strain is a speciation off the original hawthorn strain.
Yet another talk.origins participant writes:

I do not currently have references to cite for the speciation of fish, however I have a couple for the case of rats. Genus Rattus currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages [3]. ([1] is the only source I have consulted.)
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

(thanks to TalkOrigins)

I am confident about the existence of my God through personal interaction with him, and through through his guidance concerning my brotherhood and their activities in the world. What about you?

Son of Sam was similarly confident, whom I hope we can both agree was nuts. What makes you different from him?

 

[Deeje]

@ Sapiens....why did you bother with all of that? We have been all through this countless times.

The cichlids were still fish....a new variety within the species perhaps, but not morphing into something else.

The mouse on the Faeroe Islands was still a mouse.

The flies adapted and became a new species of hawthorn fly.....still Hawthorn flies though. No?

All the rest are the same. You have examples of adaptation, not evolution. Why do you persist in claiming that it is evolution?
Adaptation is NOT an example of macro-evolution....it is a programmed response in all living things to a change of environment or food supply. Its a survival mechanism pre-installed in their programming.

What Darwin observed on the Galapagos was adaptation not evolution. The finches were new varieties of finches but still clearly identifiable as finches. Same with the iguanas and the tortoises......they differed slightly from the mainland species, but had not become some other kind of animal. How is it you see without really seeing?

 

[Deeje]

Son of Sam was similarly confident, whom I hope we can both agree was nuts. What makes you different from him?

Are you not confident of your beliefs Sapiens? What makes you different from him?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. If God had used evolution he would have told a different story in Genesis. It is quite detailed in a simple kind of way. It gives us the order of creation in the stream of time.

But it specifically says it took only six days, and yet you choose to interpret "days" to mean something vastly different, and yet here you are claiming it is "very specific". What's more, the order in the Bible is wrong - land animals pre-date birds, and yet the Bible says that birds were made before creatures of the land. So which is it?

Never does it say that the earth was created immediately before creation began. We are obviously living on an old earth with ancient creatures that once inhabited it. Genesis does not disagree with that. It just tells us what creatures were around when Adam and his wife were finally created. Even science knows that man arrived last.

Except the Bible says it only took six days. If God hadn't meant days, why would the Bible say it?

Refining a creative process is what I believe is seen. Not killing off one species to create another.

So, evolution is what we see, then?

We as humans possess the Creator's qualities, but not his power. We often refine the things we design to make them better or more appealing. Sometimes we have to scrap something and start again. Creative individuals do this. I am an artist, so I know that is true. Some things require improvement and some things need to go back to scratch because they don't quite measure up to expectation.

Like the process of evolution.

I so often hear about all this "overwhelming evidence" that turns out to be an overwhelming amount of speculation, suggestion and wishful thinking when you examine the actual evidence.

There is no speculation that speciation is observed and that the fossil record clearly shows diversification of species from a common ancestor over time. No speculation is required for these facts to be observed.

The power of suggestion is what drives evolutionary science and anyone who reads what these scientists write will see it very clearly, unless they have their blinkers on. Most assume that evolution is irrefutably true, so they never question the "science". They should.

You are ill informed to tell people that.

To suggest such a thing reveals that you have no notion of God's original purpose, what went wrong, and how God solved the problem, whilst still keeping his original purpose on track. It reveals why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I note that you haven't answered my question. That is far more telling.

I'm sorry but that statement is baseless nonsense.

Then demonstrate your claim to be true.

Or perhaps it is you who don't understand a clever deception when when you see one?

Or maybe it's you? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claims?

Do you expect it to? I don't recall saying that it was.

You brought it up, hence implying that it was relevant. If you didn't believe it was relevant, you wouldn't have mentioned it.

You seem unable to see science as something God created for intelligent minds to study.

Now I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. I have spent the last two posts explaining how you can easily believe that evolution could be an expression of God's will, and now you tell me I am "unable to see" exactly what I have been trying to explain to you this whole time.

You are just being deliberately ignorant at this stage.

If there was no Creator, then all this matter that we call the universe, would not exist.

You can't demonstrate that.

If people don't believe that things can get "poofed" into existence, then where did the material universe come from?

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

Science seems to agree that it was an almighty act that formed what we see out there.

Outright false.

What kind of power could create such a monumentally huge and complex thing with no intelligence required to direct any of it?

Another argument from ignorance fallacy.

And if there is no first cause, then where did life itself come from?

Nobody said that there isn't a first cause, we just have no reason to assume that first cause, if it exists, is God.

Again, it could not have just accidentally happened and transformed itself into all the life forms we see.....with no intelligent direction guiding it.

Again, you can't possibly demonstrate that. We know that the building blocks of life can form naturally, and we know life diversifies and increases in complexity over time.

Can there be a fusion between the two versions of how life came to be, as you seem to suggest?

Why not? The thing about propositions of God is that you can insert them anywhere. What keeps our feet on the ground? God does. Discovered gravity? Well, that's what God uses. What makes us ill? God testing us. Discovered germs? Well, that's what God uses. How is life so suited to its environment? God made it like that. Discovered evolution? Well, that's what God uses.

Why is that so difficult?

If you believe that, then may I suggest that your fantasy is way bigger than mine?

I don't happen to believe it, but I find it ridiculous that you're unable to.

The Creator tells us how he created.....if you don't want to believe him, then that is up to you. But if you believe in God, then why do you need evolution as your answer?

That's like me asking you "if you believe in God, then why do you need gravity as your answer for how planets form?"

You can accept both. And you already admit that you interpret the Genesis account differently to what is actually read, so what difference does it make?

Why can't God just be the Creator he claims to be?

So why couldn't God have made the Universe in six days, as they claim to have?

Whose word are you taking for that? What has been observed is variety within a species. No "speciation" has ever occurred that turned one kind of creature into another at any time.
Tell me what experiments with speciation ever did that.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

I guess we will just have to wait and see, won't we?

I doubt it. You clearly have no interest in looking.

I am confident about the existence of my God through personal interaction with him, and through through his guidance concerning my brotherhood and their activities in the world. What about you?

I'm confident in my position because the facts support it. As for your personal interaction, there's some people who claim to have been abducted by aliens that I think you would get on with.

 

[Deeje]

I'm confident in my position because the facts support it.

I have been told countless times by the scientists here that there are no facts in evolution. So as far as I can see, you have no support?

As for your personal interaction, there's some people who claim to have been abducted by aliens that I think you would get on with.

Very intelligent response.

I have no interest in continuing dialogue with you.

 

[Willamena]

How about the Magi following a star to a manger under it? Imagine trying to decide when to stop, and which manger was directly under the star when you did. Imagine your camel galloping about 1000 mph through the sand at night to keep up with the star. You might spill your myrrh.

I want one of those camels.

Edit: The magi were astrologers as well as astronomers, so deciding when to stop was just a matter of finding the right sign.

 

[Derek500]

From what Jesus taught, we can see that "religion" is something that can take people away from God rather than something that draws them closer. There is an enemy loose in the world, whose primary MO is deception. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) As God's adversary, he has been permitted to test the human race as to their fitness for everlasting life here on earth. This was the place that God designed to be our permanent home.....it still will be, but not until the issues surrounding the abuse of free will are settled.

According to the teachings of Jesus Christ, "few" are in line for that privilege. (Matthew 7:13-14) There are only "sheep" and "goats" in this world from God's standpoint....no matter what religion they subscribe to. There is one God and only one acceptable way to worship him. Those who think they can worship any way they please, are in for a rude awakening.

As for those who identify as "Christians".....Jesus had a warning for them too....
Matthew 7:21-23:
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

At the judgment that is looming, only those "doing the will of the Father" will inherit the Kingdom, meaning that they will have qualified as citizens of that Kingdom. The rest will forfeit their right to live, having disqualified themselves from retaining the gift of life. God gives and God can take away.....that is his right as Sovereign of the Universe.

Again, you didn't answer the question.

Remember that the Pope accepts evolution. The Pope is not an atheist.

The question again:

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[Thumper]

I want one of those camels.

Edit: The magi were astrologers as well as astronomers, so deciding when to stop was just a matter of finding the right sign

From an astronomy perspective -- Have you ever looked up at the stars at night? Can you tell which house any star is directly over? Which town? Does the time of night matter when looking at star positions?

As far as astrology is concerned -- Do you really believe that your moods or anything else can be affected by Mercury being in retrograde?

 

[gnostic]

Edit: The magi were astrologers as well as astronomers, so deciding when to stop was just a matter of finding the right sign.

Astrology is not astronomy.

Astrology is nothing more than placing meanings to stars and planets, that have none. It is just superstition and pseudoscience, no better than foretelling the future with crystal ball or reading palms or tea leaves.

Ancient people used to gut animals - the sacrifices - and supposedly looking for signs or omen in the creatures' livers, stomach and intestines.

Disgusting practice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have been told countless times by the scientists here that there are no facts in evolution. So as far as I can see, you have no support?

Then you aren't even looking. The genetic evidence alone is overwhelming.

Very intelligent response.

I have no interest in continuing dialogue with you.

If you're just going to ignore all the facts and arguments being made, then there was no dialogue to begin with. There's no use trying to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[Willamena]

From an astronomy perspective -- Have you ever looked up at the stars at night? Can you tell which house any star is directly over? Which town? Does the time of night matter when looking at star positions?

As far as astrology is concerned -- Do you really believe that your moods or anything else can be affected by Mercury being in retrograde?

The houses are on the earth, not in the heavens.

But that's neither here nor there.

 

[Thumper]

I had originally said "From an astronomy perspective -- Have you ever looked up at the stars at night? Can you tell which house any star is directly over? Which town? Does the time of night matter when looking at star positions?

As far as astrology is concerned -- Do you really believe that your moods or anything else can be affected by Mercury being in retrograde?"

To which Willamena replied:
The houses are on the earth, not in the heavens.

But that's neither here nor there.

What are you talking about? You really seem to have no idea about astronomy or even basic visual perception here.

Stars don't stay in one place at night, they move across the sky, just like the sun. So at say 10am, what town is the sun directly over? How about at maybe 1pm?

Celestial objects cannot by any stretch of the imagination pinpoint any spot on the surface of this planet.

And, again, your comment about astrology is about as meaningful as tea leaf reading or voodoo.

 

[Sapiens]

Are you not confident of your beliefs Sapiens? What makes you different from him?

Unlike you and Son of Sam, I do not hold any supernatural beliefs and I do not claim to communicate with any supernatural beings.

 

[Willamena]

What are you talking about? You really seem to have no idea about astronomy or even basic visual perception here.

Stars don't stay in one place at night, they move across the sky, just like the sun. So at say 10am, what town is the sun directly over? How about at maybe 1pm?

Celestial objects cannot by any stretch of the imagination pinpoint any spot on the surface of this planet.

And, again, your comment about astrology is about as meaningful as tea leaf reading or voodoo.

It was humourous, my apologies. A "house" is an astrological term for a division on the earth, twelve of them, in the same manner that the heavens is divided into the twelve Zodiological signs. Just some astrology humour.

As for the magi, they could have stopped as soon as they saw around them on earth sufficient signs to fulfill the astrological prophecy. No moving stars needed.

 

[Thumper]

It was humourous, my apologies. A "house" is an astrological term for a division on the earth, twelve of them, in the same manner that the heavens is divided into the twelve Zodiological signs. Just some astrology humour.

As for the magi, they could have stopped as soon as they saw around them on earth sufficient signs to fulfill the astrological prophecy. No moving stars needed.

Yes. I am familiar with the term with astrology, but I missed the reference.

Astrology itself is still meaningless.

Now, if you want to make up stuff about the Magi, fine, as long as you understand that you are just making sh!t up.

But a star still could not lead them anywhere.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes. I am familiar with the term with astrology, but I missed the reference.

Astrology itself is still meaningless.

Now, if you want to make up stuff about the Magi, fine, as long as you understand that you are just making sh!t up.

But a star still could not lead them anywhere.

Yes, there is an unresolvable parallax problem there.

 

[Deeje]

Unlike you and Son of Sam, I do not hold any supernatural beliefs and I do not claim to communicate with any supernatural beings.

So you are absolutely sure that it is impossible for supernatural beings to exist? Or is it more correct to say that you have just never personally encountered them?

What does "supernatural" mean? Oxford definition......"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If something is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" does that mean it "can't" exist?