Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

Expand Messages
  • spacehut1
    without doubt he believed a Creator was not involved … No one believes Darwin used a Creator in his theory - This is such a dishonest and blatant
    Message 1 of 117 , Oct 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      "without doubt he believed a Creator was not involved … No one believes Darwin used a Creator in his theory" - This is such a dishonest and blatant disregard for what is in front of you. Darwin acknowledges the Creator, but that means the Creator was not involved. Yes means no. Ground means sky. Darwin actually admits holding a creation view when writing Origin of Species, as Geisler notes:

      "Darwin's Original Theistic Beliefs … He adds, `I remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body' " (citing The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Nora Darwin Barlow, 1993, page 91). Emphasis on conviction.

      continuing: "Darwin recognized `the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man .. as the result of blind chance or necessity.' Thus, `when reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.' Darwin acknowledged that he once had been a creationist. He even spoke of it as a view `which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained' (Darwin, 30). `This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually become weaker' (Darwin, Autobiography, 92-93)." ( - Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2005, page 182)

      "He didn't want to part himself from the culture .." - That would mean Origin of Species is politically correct (under their times), containing creationist material.

      "the erroneous presupposition that design requires a designer. That's simply wrong." - Feel free to substantiate what you are saying, instead of making blanket statements.

      "anyone can use metaphor and analogy as meaningful descriptions without being unscientific." - So, if I say `God created' or Darwin says `the Creator' started it, that's a meaningful description and scientific.

      "The only real "elaborate" is reflected in amino acids with …" - Your reply seems out of sequence with what you were addressing. So, Darwin's statement is mindful of an intelligent design?

      "Darwin didn't have any theory of the beginning life, which is not a part of evolution anyway." - Not so fast: "In his later years, Darwin no longer had such a negative viewpoint of the utility of scientifically determining the origin of life. In a letter written in 1871, he stated that he attempted to devise a model of the evolution of life with a regular progression backward from the highest to the lowest organisms, and he finally reached the conclusion that living systems arose from non-living ones … Darwin was more than fifty years ahead of his time when he wrote that. It was not until the 1920s that Oparin (1924) and Haldane (1928) independently formulated theories to explain the origin of life. They made essentially the same statement that Darwin had made half a century before." ( - Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1976, pages 93-94; editor in chief, Dr. Bernhard Grzimek; article by Dr. Klaus Dose, Professor, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg University)

      continuing: "As Darwin indicated in 1871, the origin of life must be understood as an evolutionary process. The ultimate beginning of this process is intimately related to the origin of the universe. The development of the simplest elements (like hydrogen and other light elements) follows the evolution of stars and solar systems, and these cosmological developments are inseperable from the development of the higher elements, which arose from thermonuclear reactions occurring in stars. Some of these elements are the so-called bioelements (those used in forming living organisms … They are the basic material for chemical evolution (theprebiotic formation of organic substances), a process that began in the stars but was chiefly completed on earthlike planets." (page 95)

      Again, "Darwin didn't have any theory of the beginning life, which is not a part of evolution anyway. Evolution begins from what first began … The origin of the species does not mean the origin of life. First origin of life, then origin of species from life." - I understand what you're saying, but Darwin (favoring another theistic view) is found criticizing special creationists in Origin for claiming species are immutable, that all species change with a divine act. "On the view of each organism with all its separate parts having been specially created … Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the mutability of species" (656, 658, 6th edition). Earlier on that same page (658), Darwin states, "It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life." Wikipedia (for what it's worth) summarizes: "He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver." (-under Darwin, Religious views)

      Referring to Fleeming Jenkin who opposed the Origin of Species. Jenkin notes the different creative views, writing about Origin in 1867: "Others seriously allege that it is more consonant with a lofty idea of the Creator's action to suppose that he produced beings by natural selection, rather than by the finikin process of making each separate little race by the exercise of Almighty power" ( - Darwin and His Critics, 1973, Harvard University Press, page 344).

      "it isn't physics. It's biology. Everything before the origin of life evolved, as did that very origin, but evolution theory begins with life that has begun .." - So, evolution before life is outside evolution theory. The index for A Brief History of Time says, "Evolution of the universe, 120-121, 124." World famous physicist Stephen Hawking notes in Brief History, "The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe" (page 10). Emphasis on theory, evolution, and universe.

      Physics is not excluded. From Amazon books: Biogenesis Theories of Life's Origin (1999, Oxford University Press), by Noam Lahav, Emeritus Professor of Origin of life and Soil Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem . The Amazon reviewer notes: "…there is a brief but important discussion of general thermodynamic considerations, including free energy, entropy, information content of DNA, and autocatalysis. From there, we go to a chapter on biochemical molecules and processes."

      and, "The basic assumptions are that the physical laws are applicable and that evolution takes place at the molecular level. The strategies include cosmogeochemical (characterizing the environments in which the first living entities formed) …"

      Origins of Life (2000, Cambridge University Press), by Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton: "This apology for a physicist venturing into biology will serve for me as well … Schrodinger [an earlier physicist] .. did not ask any questions about the origin of life … He also understood that the time was not then ripe for any fundamental understanding of life's origin … Now, half a century later, the time is ripe to ask the questions Schrodinger avoided." (pages 2-3, which can be viewed at Amazon)

      "One can refer to a "Supreme Being" without believing it. Thus Sagan, as he clearly stated over and over that he does not believe in it." - I do not recall stating he did believe in God; Sagan was agnostic. You are out of sequence. I was simply addressing his example between God and matter. You seemed to disagree that he was referring to God.

      "it is questionable that science and religion can be compatible." - Questionable, as opposed to impossible. This is a surprising admission. Science writer Gillian Beer notes, "He [Darwin] welcomed Asa Gray's pamphlet `Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology' (1861). It is, then, not quite easy to believe him when, in the third edition, he insists … `I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws …' " ( - The Origin of Species, 2nd edition reprinted 1998, Oxford University Press, introduction page xxvi)

      "no presupposition without evidence, and religion requires that." - I do not agree with blind faith. There is this field called apologetics, it's pretty interesting.

      "If religion sufficiently conforms to science, then yes, a Creator is compatable with evolution theory." - Gasp! Impossible! Science and religion compatible? Put that one in the public schools. How can the Creator be compatible when Darwin did not allow such in his theory (as you write about)? How can it be compatible if it (creation) isn't true?

      "Of course you have your Creationist sources. So what." - Let's just ignore that part where you requested that I show creationist sources. That's why I presented creationist sources – that's what you asked for. You are so out of sequence, ignoring what is in front of you. Remember you wrote, "You dream by yourself. Please show me where you find that idea from any creationist sort of scientist." Richard, your charge is clearly false.

      "They are bound to their religion, as even a few scientists venture out of science to their emotions and the religious culture." - Must be what Darwin did, right (as you describe before)? How could the prestigious Origin of Species contain unscientific ventures? This is problematic. If Origin contains religious influence, it should not be in the science class.

      "If you want sources, the internet has plenty of them … Educate yourself. Don't depend on me to educate you." - Apparently no one is allowed to ask Richard to document what he says. He is allowed to make statements at will. Notice you asked me to provide creationist sources for what I was claiming. How can you be so blind to your contradiction?

      "Why would a decent God create such chaos, suffering, and evil?" - If that's true, then all criminals should be released from prison. They cannot be held responsible for another's actions – nothing's self-inflicted, God created crime.

      "Belief in Santa Claus is compatible with getting presents for the kids." - Sounds scientific. What scientist maintains that (not in front of the kids, of course)? There's no other options? If logic is allowed, it seems more reasonable to believe it was parents or charity. Prof. David Hull (Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin) notes, "Numerous physicists attacked evolutionary theory because of its incompatibility with physics as it was then known … Both sides agreed that the findings of physics, geology, and biology would eventually have to be made compatible …" ( - Darwin and His Critics, 1973, Harvard University Press, pages 349-350). I'm sure that's what they were thinking, compatible just like Santa and presents.

      "(Numbers 31:17,18). And of course dash the babies against the rocks. So you believe all that?" - You conveniently bypass that concept of an earthly kingdom (under the Law and the prophets) and the kingdom not of this world (under Christ). As Origen has noted, "In the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take [away] from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country … would have been to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them." (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, page 399)

      An earthly kingdom or theocracy requires a military, as Christ noted: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight …" (John 18:36).

      So, in Numbers 31 the Amalekites were having a family picnic one delightful Sunday afternoon, after church service, with colorful butterflies even landing on some shoulders. Suddenly, the Israelites were thirsty for murder and having nothing better to do decided to attack and slay these wonderful people. Richard, as well as atheist mythology, are quick to ignore details that overturn their prejudice.

      The Amalekites were a "nomadic tribe of formidable people that first attacked the Israelites after the exodus at Rephidim [Numbers 24:20] … Israel won the initial battle (Exod. 17:8-16), but was later driven back into the Sinai wilderness by a coalition of Amalekites and Canaanites (Num. 14:39-45). Thereafter the Amalekites waged a barbaric guerilla war against Israel (Deut. 25:17-19). Fighting continued after Israel settled in Canaan. Because of their atrocities, God commanded Saul to exterminate the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2-3). Saul disobeyed and the Amalekites were not defeated completely until late [1 Chron. 4:43] .." (Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2003, page 54).

      "The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, they desired to destroy Israel [1 Samuel 15:2] … The act of their total destruction was necessitated .." (When Critics Ask, 1997, page 161,by Norman Geisler)

      Deuteronomy 21 is also legislative, and not at will. "The laws upon this point aim not only at the defence, but also at the limitation, of parental authority … his father and mother were to take him and lead him out to the elders of the town into the gate of the place. The elders are not regarded here as judges in the strict sense of the word, but as magistrates, who had to uphold the parental authority, and administer the local police. The gate of the town was the forum … Here they were to accuse the son as being unmanageable, refractory, disobedient, as `a glutton and a drunkard.' These last accusations show the reason for the unmanageableness and refractoriness" ( - Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, pages 943-4).

      John Haley notes, " .. it is a son, and not a daughter .. he is `stubborn' and `rebellious,' a `glutton' and a `drunkard' … both [parents] must concur in the complaint to make it a legal one .." The law must have worked – perhaps useful as a deterrent, as Haley continues: ".. no case is on record in which a person was put to death under this law … the mere fact of the existence of such a law would tend strongly to confirm the authority of parents, and to deter youth from disobedience and unfilial conduct" ( - Alleged Discrepencies of the Bible, page 288).

      "First was the beginning of our universe … There was no matter there .." - Please pardon my inquiry, but what you have mentioned sounds so different. I'm used to hearing that nature is material. As George Smoot describes it, " … the theory envisages the universe beginning with a mighty eruption .. the big bang did not move into existing space; it .. was the cataclysmic creation of matter and space … What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?" ( - Wrinkles In Time, 1993, pages 8, 291). From Isaac Asimov: ".. at some time in the distant past, it began as a dense core of matter" ( - Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, pages 42-45). Gerald Schroeder (a Jewish creationist) mentions: "The big bang produced, from nothing, a universe composed of photons … consider the laws of physics that made it all happen. Did they precede the universe? That would mean laws of physics existed without the physical material upon which to act … The beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter … That which predates time is not bound by time .. it is eternal" ( - The Hidden Face of God, 2001, pages 41, 44-45). It seems contradictive to suggest nature can exist without space and time, or matter (if nature isn't physical, then it's spiritual).

      The question is what caused nature. Nature cannot cause itself, since the cause must be greater than the effect (nature cannot be greater than itself).






      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:26 PM
      > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
      >
      >
      >
      > (see bottom post)
      >
      >
      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
      > >
      > <snipped>
      >
      > "At times he [Darwin] may have felt somewhat forced to conform." - So, he
      > was just following the consensus.
      >
      > R: The religious belief of the time. Darwin shows he was not a
      > nonconformist, and his wife was deeply religious, and his child girl died.
      > He didn't want to part himself from the culture, but without doubt he
      > believed a Creator was not involved.
      >
      > "Dawkins and Dennett do describe evolution as having the appearance of
      > design and purpose." -Metaphorically? Perhaps `design and purpose' are
      > metaphors for `Creator;' unless there is design without a designer, and the
      > pointless making a purpose. So, religion really is compatible with science.
      > Right?
      >
      > R: No. Still you are stuck with the erroneous presupposition that design
      > requires a designer. That's simply wrong.
      >
      > "There is no use of metaphor in the scientific part of the theory." - This
      > is unheard of. What part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is unscientific?
      >
      > R: Testing and confirmation are involved, with no need for metaphor. But
      > anyone can use metaphor and analogy as meaningful descriptions without being
      > unscientific.
      >
      > "basic evolution theory that all scientists accept." - Which is what Darwin
      > proved, there is no distinction. Right? Or, did Darwin get it wrong?
      >
      > R: No. Darwin's basic theories persists right up to present times.
      >
      > "I see no way any of those could possibly infer any ID theory." - If I say
      > "elaborately constructed forms," "a beginning," and, "so complex a manner"
      > and then say it was "the Creator" (as Darwin did) .. Naaahhh, that doesn't
      > sound like a reference to intelligent design. Intelligence wouldn't
      > construct anything elaborate or complex.
      >
      > R: The only real "elaborate" is reflected in amino acids with RNA as
      > inorganic evolved into organic among present conditions or earth 3.5 billion
      > years ago, with water and heat, sun for land, volcanic at bottom of sea.
      >
      > "Of course there were beginnings. Some say one beginning of life, from which
      > evolution began." - We will just ignore that part where Darwin said
      > beginning (as I quoted), and throw in beginnings. Quickly, run away from the
      > Origin of Species.
      >
      > R: Darwin didn't have any theory of the beginning life, which is not a part
      > of evolution anyway. Evolution begins from what first began. For the
      > origin(s), you go to biogenesis and abiogenesis. Darwin had no knowledge of
      > any of that. The origin of the species does not mean the origin of life.
      > First origin of life, then origin of species from life.
      >
      > "the beginning through development of organic life from inorganic matter and
      > chemicals is not part of evolution theory . It is separate." - I can't
      > believe what I'm reading. There is a part of physics unrelated to evolution,
      > that's impossible - it's starting to sound creationist. Isn't abiogenesis
      > also known as prebiotic evolution or chemical evolution? Also, I suspect you
      > are not referring to biogenetic law (embryology) when you say biogenesis,
      > correct?
      >
      > R: My quote as I said above. And it isn't physics. It's biology.
      > Everything before the origin of life evolved, as did that very origin, but
      > evolution theory begins with life that has begun. Is it possible you can
      > understand that? Darwin worked only from life that had begun. Why don't
      > you google biogenesis and abiogensis, maybe learn something.
      >
      > ""what a spirit that tennis player has!" Or "I follow my spirit" usually
      > referring to intuition.." - So, Sagan was not referring to the Supreme
      > Being whose spiritual existence was before matter. Whew, that was close. For
      > a moment I thought Sagan was taking a shot at that religious type of spirit
      > that the Bible describes God as. Allright, matter has always existed just as
      > the spirit a tennis player has. Sounds scientific.
      >
      > R: One can refer to a "Supreme Being" without believing it. Thus Sagan, as
      > he clearly stated over and over that he does not believe in it.
      >
      > ""sky" may refer to the universe itself." - Please explain that one.
      >
      > R: What is you context in that?
      >
      > Previously you wrote "separate only in terms of education," which lacked
      > clarity and I had to inquire. It sounded as though you possibly meant the
      > two (science and religion) were taught in public school, but now you stated,
      > "It means only that creationism cannot be taught in a PUBLIC school." That's
      > exactly my point. The Origin of Species should not be allowed in public
      > school, as it relies on religious statements. Complimentary to science means
      > where science and religion are not necessarily portrayed as incompatible.
      >
      > R: Fine, except that it is questionable that science and religion can be
      > compatible. Such would require at least one presupposition, and science can
      > have none, other than what is known in science, such as the laws and forces.
      > Thus no presupposition without evidence, and religion requires that.
      >
      > "In Darwin's view, the source of life was self-generation . Never did he
      > claim there was any external source or cause, such as divine." - A
      > complete contradiction, you are in denial, Richard. Darwin introduces the
      > Creator with compliments of His work: elaborate, complex, beautiful. It
      > takes a lot of faith to believe that's a metaphor. Consider other religious
      > statements in Origin, which must automatically all be metaphors:
      >
      > R: No. You misread Darwin. You can't take one or a few off-hand religious
      > statements of Darwin to represent his whole viewpoint. In his theory of
      > evolution, Darwin does NOT use, or believe in, a Creator. He believed life
      > self-generated but didn't, couldn't, explain how that worked. Now science
      > has a good idea how that worked. NO external source for Darwin. Drop your
      > bias and read all of him. No one believes Darwin used a Creator in his
      > theory. You and maybe some other Creationists think that, but it's simply
      > wrong. Wishful thinking.
      >
      > Here, Darwin disagrees with special creation in favor of an adaptive
      > creation: "Several eminent naturalists have of late published their belief
      > that a multitude of reputed species in each genus are not real species, but
      > that other species are real, that is, have been independently created . they
      > do not pretend that they can define, or even conjecture, which are the
      > created forms of life, and which are those produced by secondary laws . some
      > of these same questions cannot be answered by those who believe in the
      > appearance or creation of only a few forms of life, or of some one form
      > alone . certainly we ought not to believe that innumerable beings within
      > each great class have been created with plain, but deceptive, marks of
      > descent from a single parent." (pages 660-1, 6th edition)
      >
      > R: So what's you point with that. By "Several eminent naturalists" he's
      > talking about others, not himself. He realized descent could not come from
      > "a single parent," but requires a long history of descent. There is nothing
      > there about "adaptave creation", but just natural selection from
      > adaptation, i.e. no "creationism." So what's your point?
      >
      > "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
      > that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
      > better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
      > that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
      > the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
      > the birth and death of the individual" (page 668, 6th edition). Emphasis
      > on, "what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator." Then he
      > declares grandeur in the view that God started life in a few forms on page
      > 670.
      >
      > R: So he's saying better that those views of others, a Creator could be
      > involved. The point is that if you read all of what he says rather than
      > picking and choosing references to God, then you will see he has no believe
      > in any external force in evolution, and no Creator in the beginning. That's
      > like you guys P & C theory of hermeneutics of the Bible: pick out what you
      > want to support your interpretations. "If a man has a stubborn and
      > rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen
      > to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of
      > him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town... Then all the men
      > of his town shall stone him to death." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) So you should
      > do that too, right? And: ""Now therefore, kill every male among the little
      > ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the
      > young girls who have not known man by lying with him. keep alive for
      > yourselves." (Numbers 31:17,18. And of course dash the babies against the
      > rocks. So you believe all that?
      >
      >
      >
      > Darwin affirms the Creator is compatible and not excluded from his theory:
      > "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the
      > religious feelings of anyone .. A celebrated author and divine has written
      > .. that it is just as noble a conception of the deity to believe that he
      > created a few original forms capable of self-development" (page 658, 6th
      > edition).
      >
      > R: If religion sufficiently conforms to science, then yes, a Creator is
      > compatable with evolution theory. However, there is a big difference
      > between compatibility and truth, or evidence for a theory.
      >
      > "He did NOT invoke supernatural causation. No one says that. You dream by
      > yourself. Please show me where you find that idea from any creationist sort
      > of scientist." - Here ya go, from creationist sources:
      >
      > R: Of course you have your Creationist sources. So what. Does that make
      > them right? Of course not. They are bound to their religion, as even a few
      > scientists venture out of science to their emotions and the religious
      > culture.
      >
      > <snipped>
      >
      > Please note, I asked you for references of leading evolutionists that
      > explain away Darwin's "the Creator" as simply a metaphor. Unfortunately, you
      > provided none. It's starting to sound like you're resorting to rogue
      > statements to excuse embarrassing contradictions.
      >
      > R: If you want sources, the internet has plenty of them IF you are
      > interested in learning "the other side," which you are not. Google Dawkins,
      > Dennett, and even evolution. Educate yourself. Don't depend on me to
      > educate you. That would cost you.
      >
      > "Darwin was not interested in "what started" the process. That is outside
      > evolution theory." - From Darwin: "it is no valid objection that science
      > as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of
      > life." (-658), then he mentions the compatible view of the Deity creating a
      > few original forms I cited above. No, he wasn't interested in the start,
      > that's why he mentions it in his book and disputes special creationists in
      > favor of an adaptive creation.
      >
      > R: Confirms what I said about Darwin. Again compatibility doesn't help
      > you. Belief in Santa Claus is compatible with getting presents for the
      > kids. Dawin in his descriptions and his theory depended only on evidence.
      > A malicious Demon Creator is compatible with evolution, as playing with
      > his/its sadistic needs of playing with life on this planet. Actually I
      > think the Creator Demon is more compatible, based on evidence of humanity,
      > with evolution than a Creator God. Why would a decent God create such
      > chaos, suffering, and evil? Not my kind of God.
      >
      > "What started itself is nature itself. Nature has generated itself." - So,
      > before nature there was nature (even though matter cannot predate itself).
      > This is like saying a hamburger made itself, before hamburger ingredients
      > existed. Earlier in this post you wrote, "Matter indeed is not eternal; it
      > was created just after the beginning of our universe." There are obvious
      > contradictions in your statement, please clarify. I define nature as space,
      > matter, time and energy.
      >
      > R: Again you are thinking from your indoctrinated ways. There is no need
      > for a designer for design, no need for a nature to create a nature. First
      > was the beginning of our universe, the unknown part being -32 power of a
      > second and from there is known, and even observed from about 300,000 years
      > of the beginning. There was no matter there, until it evolved from the
      > forces acting on hydrogen and helium, then nitrogen, etc.. Space and time
      > evolved, as Space/Time, and the stars evolved which produced heavier forms
      > of matter in them. Of course matter is not eternal! Neither is the
      > universe. No contradictions.
      >
      > Please try to learn something before you respond. I feel this is becoming a
      > waste of my time.
      >
      > Richard.
      >
      > Looking forward to your reply. I will have to get to the other posts later
      > (work tomorrow). Thanks, everyone!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Judy
      Thank you Maha for being so gracious also. Judy ________________________________ From: Maha Vorsak Pra To:
      Message 117 of 117 , Nov 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you Maha for being so gracious also.
        Judy




        ________________________________
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 4:08:54 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Thank you judy for being so gracious.
        Mahavorsak.
        --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Judy <cobbie1919@yahoo. com> wrote:

        From: Judy <cobbie1919@yahoo. com>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 8:39 PM

         

        Maha, it could have been me, as I real a lot of books....  No problem for me.
        Judy

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 2:53:42 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Hi Judy! I don't know what it is you think I may have said. If it was about there being no evidence that the Jews ever left Egypt led my Moses, I may have said that, because there is no archaeological evidence of that. And I don't remember where I read it, but I did read it because I wouldn't, couldn't make up something like that.

        Vorsak: No it wasn’t that, and as I indicated by the question mark, I wasn’t sure that it was you. It was, I think, in relation to you making a remark about a book you were reading. I tried to find the email in the archives but we don’t change topic headings enough for it to be easy to find much, I couldn’t even find my original remark! Someone said there was evidence for the bible, or some such thing. I said something about having to agree with whomever it was. But all I meant was buildings, locations etc. I remember I mentioned the Iliad. But that wasn’t my first reply, it was second, I believe. Anyway it is hardly a big deal it was simply an observation.

        Anyway, my apologies if I misattributed the remark to you. I don’t mind admitting when I’m in error in the least.
        Vorsak

        --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Judy <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com> wrote:

        From: Judy <cobbie1919@ yahoo. com>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 3:41 PM

         

        I don't know what it is you think I may have said. If it was about there being no evidence that the Jews ever left Egypt led my Moses, I may have said that, because there is no archaeological evidence of that. And I don't remember where I read it, but I did read it because I wouldn't, couldn't make up something like that.

        Judy

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Maha Vorsak Pra <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 6:00:48 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

         
        Richard: Who said that? Certainly not me! Are you yet again misreading, a
        typical penchant you have? What "intangibles" ? It is clear you know
        nothing about archaeology! Events, events, events. Tangible. Where's you
        evidence?

        Vorsak: I think it was Judy? But I’m not sure. Your gratuitous ad hominem’s and forays into pointlessness, Darwin also spoke of “The Origin of Species as “Origin”, speak volumes about your intellect.
        Mahavorsak

        --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Richard Godwin <meta@...> wrote:

        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
        To: deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6:57 PM

         

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Maha Vorsak Pra" <mahavorsak@ yahoo. com>
        To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
        Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:56 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator

        "The original statement was that there was no evidence for things in the
        Bible that is all. It was a blanket statement. I then said, yes there is
        evidence, unless American fundamentalists are busily building ruins and
        hiding coins to fake evidence. Nowhere did I imply that any evidence from
        archeology etc. confirms intangibles, such as beliefs etc. So your: “So
        please do give you evidence of archaeology.” Is a question born out of
        inattention.

        R: Who said that? Certainly not me! Are you yet again misreading, a
        typical penchant you have? What "intangibles" ? It is clear you know
        nothing about archaeology! Events, events, events. Tangible. Where's you
        evidence?

        Richard.

        Mahavorsak

        ------------ --------- --------- ------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.