(Isn't that weird.. we are talking about knowing a lot about the
universe again.. Maybe people need to hear the verse: Pride goes before
destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall(Pov. 16:18).)
Also I would like to know the last time a scientist went back in
time and did multiple experiments on the universe or even went back in
time and presented facts that such a thing has happend? Hmmmmm.. .. NEVER!
So don't waste my time by saying the supposive "educated guess"
for macroevolution has been theorized.
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Give me a break.
Until you can show me experimental verification or factual evidence
that "MOSTLY" backs the theory of evolution I will state it is a bunch of
hoogwaash.
Tell me how did the complex structure of EVEN DNA accidentally
form in premordial ooooze and manage to stay together while accidentally
the rest of the cell of an organism accidentally form around it.
According to the "theory of evolution" we should find some force of
probability behind it happening. By the way the probability of anything
like the above happening ONCE is about 1/(10^19) ------ atleast. This is
basically zero unless you have high enough hopes to say that this number
is worth more to you than the possibility that God(in which He did) made
the ONE cell.
Things like this make me continually laugh at evolution. Sometimes I can
hardly keep a straight face when I talk about it with people I street
witness too.
Thanks,
Tony Woodcock.
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
>
> I like how you assume that there is no such thing as a God, which
> you prone to call a demi-god before you ever even LOGICALLY look at a
> piece of literature. That's pretty cool. I guess I could assume that you
> are not real and just ignore those email messages I receive from a
> supposive man name Jeff Roberts. I think it kind of funny how illogical
> it is to assume there is no God. For to think logically you would first
> have to recognize you do NOT know everything and then realize there might
> be something bigger than you. If you would like to be atheist you can
> always think illogically and say you know everything and claim that you
> have knowledge there is no God(in which you are wrong), and then you can
> create foolish webpages to further your agenda. The reason it is not
> logical is because of the cost of your soul, as the Great God named Jesus
> once stated, WHAT IS IT TO GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD AND LOSE YOUR OWN SOUL? I
> prefer to be logical. In other words it is stupid to claim you know
> everything(in which you do not) and say there is no God(which there is)
> when you can lose an eternity over it. Basically there is nothing you can
> say against this worth while reading, so I conclude that you need to
> repent and be saved. I am assuming you have read some of Josh McDowell's
> literature which plainly tells truths.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Jeff Roberts wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
> >
> >
> > Roberts:
> > First, I don't think that either I, or the list, needed two copies of your
> > response.
> >
> > Woodcock:
> > > Hello, Jeff. I am assuming the below response is basically a way
> > > for you to say that you do not believe Christ died on the Cross for the
> > > sins of the World. I am also assuming you do not believe He claim to be
> > > God.
> >
> > Roberts:
> > Right. You assume these things. I'll grant you that someone who believes
> > that a historical demigod of the potency described in the Christian
> > tradition would *probably* not have posted what I did. That's good.
> >
> > However, not accepting the historicity of the demigod does NOT imply that
> > the poster cannot view the demigod in another fashion, such as (the much
> > more reasonable view of him being) a mythological character who could
> > have made all manner of claims, especially divinity. I think
> > somewhere in there you've also
> > presupposed that a skeptic can't conceive of your demigod being a liar.
> >
> > All my post should speak to you is that I do not fear or respect your
> > demigod to the degree that a believer does; thus, I am probably not a
> > believer. You have not established that my not being a believer means
> > that I think that your mythological demigod never made claims to divinity.
> >
> > Any more "assumptions"? Let's see ...
> >
> > Woodcock.
> > > Ah, do you know anything about history?
> >
> > Roberts:
> > A little. (That line scans really well, wouldn't you say, Mr. Till? I
> > think he sighed, there. When he says it like that, I almost have to
> > doubt myself. Very nice! =) )
> >
> > Woodcock.
> > > Well, If you do you might
> > > as well use your same rational on everything else right?
> >
> > Roberts:
> > This is a little confusing to me. My *rationale*, if that is what you
> > mean, was to show how ridiculous it is to think that scholars
> > of the calibre of those on this list would not immediately
> > recognize your yellow journalism. My rationale was to show that someone
> > who would take the quotes you found at face value would probably also
> > believe that his opponent actually has testimony from the
> > mythological demigod
> > disclaiming the entire tradition, that there is a text file capable of
> > compiling itself into a binary, loading itself into memory, doing the kind
> > of things purported to be within the power of "Good Times", and also that
> > pyramid investing in Albania is a good idea. It's interesting to note
> > that you caught the insincerity in my post, and not your own.
> >
> > Woodcock:
> > > So that you give
> > > equal judgement to all of historical documents right?
> > > Well, according to
> > > your ways of thinking I am assuming you have come up to the conclusion
> > > that all of the historical documents ever produced from the beginning of
> > > time till about 1000 AD is basically a bunch hogwash. So you probably
> > > do not believe in any of Roman history. So you probably do not believe
> > > that Julius Caesar was what has been stated in historical writings?
> >
> > Roberts:
> > That's an interesting bit of logic. Because I deny the unreasonable and
> > amazing claims of ambitious religious politicians (who are known to have
> > been among the most base figures in history, I might add), I therefore
> > deny all historical documents. Hmmm, very nice. Have you written
> > extensively on logic, Mr. Woodcock? I wonder, do you understand why
> > someone might have a problem with your means of arriving at conclusions?
> > Or, have you even noticed that people *do* have have problems with your
> > conclusions?
>
It is nice to know that you can not use logic to show why I am
wrong. But I must admit you are good at getting around it such as Mr.
Till with the verse on private interpretation of prophecy which destroys
a big portion of his so called arguement. Come on Mr. Till isn't there
some sort of trickery you can use to get out of the fix you are in with
prophecy? You know it will just be a vain babbling or vain glory..
>
> > In the paragraph above, would you say that I am agreeing, or disagreeing
> > with you? Curious.
> >
> > Mr. Woodcock:
> > > Basically what I am trying to get at is you do NOT know the first thing about
> > > judging history
> >
> > Roberts:
> > Please provide more evidence for this claim. I'm not sure I understand
> > how you can conclude all of this from just one post. Perhaps it was by
> > revelation? Maybe you can *reveal* this to me? I'm channeling you right
> > now, Mr. Woodcock ... Mr. Woodcock ... Strange; I'm not getting
> > anything. Well, maybe later.
Please read the book "A Ready Defense" or any one of the books he
cites on this topic.
> >
> > Woodcock:
> > > and your comment means as much to me as the HYPOTHETICAL
> > > existance of MACRO-evolution(by the way macroevolution to me is as
> > > believable as you telling me monkeys flew out of my butt and made the
> > > planets).
> >
> > Roberts:
> > "Hypthesis" as well as "theory" are the terminology of rational pursuit of
> > knowledge, not revelatory "grasping" in the Shankaran sense, Mr. Woodcock.
> > For me to buy that you have the dirt on MACRO-evolution (?), I first need
> > to believe that you understand the methodology by which you seek to
> > enlighten me. Please explain to me your understanding of the scientific
> > method, so that I can make an honest appraisal of your authority on
> > the matter. Can you explain what a hypothesis is?
> >
Look above at my 14 year old knowledge of the "Monkeys fly out of
my butt topic".
> >
> > Woodcock:
> > > I do know enough about the hypothetical theory of
> > > macro-evolution to laugh at it so if you would like to hear why, I would
> > > be more than glad to give why it is a foolish concept. Thanks,
> >
> > Roberts:
> > Well, there you go assuming again. I would say that it is precisely your
> > knowledge of science ("hypothetical theory", I think it was?) and this
> > MACRO-evolution that is in question. I'm also not at all convinced that
> > you understand logic well enough to be teaching me about it.
> >
> > If you have such wisdom, and one of the greatest intellectual achievements
> > of our species is so trivial, I think your mythological demigod would say
> > that you should teach me the correct way of viewing that material world.
> > It would then seem to behoove you to explain logic, history, science, and
> > the nature of reality in language suitable for instructing someone as
> > ignorant as I. Please continue my lessons, Mr. Woodcock.
> >
This intellectual achievement is one of many. Like when the
Indians intellectually achieved that a demi-god bird flapped its wings and
made the planet. Like those supposive intellecuals that stated the Earth
was flat, right? Or maybe like those intellectuals that believed in
falling off the end of the Earth. What a great achievement.. Don't give
me that it was from the church either, it was from people like you and me.
Thanks, Tony.
> > Woodcock:
> > > Bye...
> >
> > Roberts:
> > Please be careful about those email viruses, Mr. Woodcock. They're
> > killers!
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Jeff Roberts jroberts@!ashland.edu strider@!acm.org
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>