15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
maff
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Bobby D. Bryant
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Mentions to.org in its "other resources" link, too.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Lane Lewis
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
Seems the staff at Scientific American do not like the all the hoopla in
Ohio. I don't remember any ever seeing a magazine with such prestige use the
term "Creationist Nonsense". I hope the others speak up as well.
Lane
Adam Marczyk
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Hey, talkorigins.org got a mention! "Wonderfully thorough," I like it. :)
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Adam Marczyk
news:dQqP8.32703$ks6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Agreed. It's about time creationism started getting hauled out and knocked down
in the press like this. I think it may actually help the cause of science if
creationism becomes enough of a social phenomenon that it can't simply be
ignored any more - maybe it would galvanize people to actually do something
about it.
Robert Carroll
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Rennie's article was right on the button...Even better is the top of the
front cover (exactly as this header) Michael Shermer has had a monthly
column for some time now.
Bob
>
Zaph'enath
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
Cheers,
- Zaph'enath
{zaphenath(at)mirai(dot)cx}
Richard Uhrich
Shermer is the first part I read!
Yang
Actually, ever since Kansas the journal Science and SciAm and been
steadily rallying the scientists to make their voices heard in the
communities.
-----
Yang
a.a.#28
rev -273.15 high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
EAC mole and other furry creature
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott
maff
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
A Total Eclipse of Reason
http://www.sciam.com/1999/1099issue/1099commentary.html
Speaking up for Science
http://www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199scicit1.html
Politicizing Science Education
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/gross.html
Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution In The States
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html
maff
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Bad Science and False Facts
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006CF93-B8B5-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Vox Populi
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007DE34-B74D-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:31:48 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
><myn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>Actually, ever since Kansas the journal Science and SciAm and been
>steadily rallying the scientists to make their voices heard in the
>communities.
>
>Yang
You'll have to excuse t.o.ers if we say "About f****ing time!!!"
Creationists have been gutting science textbooks for at least 3
decades through acquisition procedures in California and Texas which,
in turn, affect textbooks all across America because the publishers
don't want to create multiple editions different from those they sell
in the two largest states.
Since the defeat of the Arkansas and Louisiana "scientific
creationism" laws in the 80's, creationists have had a well documented
strategy of working to gain control of local community school boards
and at least water down the teaching of evolution (which you can bet
is *still* going on despite their setback at the state level in
Kansas).
The Discovery Institute formed its "Wedge Strategy", IIRC, in 1996 and
has been busy at it ever since.
And yet, throughout all that (and other examples not coming to mind at
the moment) "mainstream" scientific organizations, with a few notable
exceptions, such as the NCSE, have largely ignored this assault on
science education and treated t.o. as if it were a collection of Don
Quixotes tilting after creationist windmills (or so it seemed to us).
If Science and Scientific American are just entering the lists because
of the Kansas flap, they are damned late!
(Rats, how did that soapbox get in here?)
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The political motivation behind the Wedge Strategy:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses . . .
and that is a _good_ thing."
-- Bobby Bryant --
Adam Marczyk
news:3d0f185d...@news-server.optonline.net...
Hear, hear! It's about bloody time the real scientists came down out of their
ivory towers and started speaking up against this creationist foolery.
Jim H
Sorry, but the first response, the one on "fact and theory", was
terribly muddled. It utterly failed to make a clear distinction
between the fact of descent with modification and the neo-darwinist
theory that explains that fact. I groaned as I read it and I'm sure
we'll see passages quoted with glee in all the usual venues.
Jim Hofmann
Wayne Bagguley
> A Total Eclipse of Reason
> http://www.sciam.com/1999/1099issue/1099commentary.html
>
> Speaking up for Science
> http://www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199scicit1.html
Those links don't work :(
-
Wayne
maff
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>
> A Total Eclipse of Reason
> http://www.sciam.com/1999/1099issue/1099commentary.html
>
> Speaking up for Science
> http://www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199scicit1.html
A Total Eclipse of Reason
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009C574-C952-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&catID=2
Speaking up for Science
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0000F191-FFE6-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&catID=2
Creationism Evolves
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00002A2D-B02B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=2&catID=2
Evolution Education Gets Bad Grades
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000433B7-8209-1C61-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1
The Importance of Being Ernst
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00049F0E-6C9C-1C6D-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2
New Theory of Cell Evolution Rejects Darwin's Doctrine
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C7E3C-BECF-1D0F-8B07809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=1
Kansas Votes to Reinstate Evolution
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00022689-C6BB-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1
Hermits and Cranks
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000547F6-C50D-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
maff
Fan Mail from the Fringe
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007E5D2-B340-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&catID=2
Roy Thearle
news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
In the above link, is the sentence:
But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
But in Jonathan Safarti's response at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
this is quoted as
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils
embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
misquoted the article?
Whichever it is, the AiG article links to the on-line version which gives
the correct date. I've asked them to fix this.
Roy
Bobby D. Bryant
> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com...
>> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>
> In the above link, is the sentence:
>
> But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils
> embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).
>
> But in Jonathan Safarti's response at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
> this is quoted as
>
> But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils
> embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
>
> What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
> correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
> misquoted the article?
Yeah, I looked at the print article last night and it does say 65 MYA.
Surely just a thinko, though it's a shame the (other) editors
didn't catch it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Roy Thearle
> > What is happening? Did SciAm get it wrong in the original article and then
> > correct the on-line version (without marking the change)? Or has AiG
> > misquoted the article?
>
> Yeah, I looked at the print article last night and it does say 65 MYA.
>
> Surely just a thinko, though it's a shame the (other) editors
> didn't catch it.
Thanks. I guess SciAm need to hire better proofreaders.
Roy
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
Old hat to most of us, but a nice read. The graph on the 3rd page
(page 81 in the print version) is scary.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
Bobby D. Bryant
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> just proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if
> evolution was proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly
> wrong it would not prove creation.
Yeah, and the funny thing is that while creationists see the theory
of evolution as The Big Threat, in actual fact geology had already
told us that literal interpretations of Genesis were incorrect well
before Darwin came up with his theory.
I.e., a six day creation, any sort of _recent_ creation, and a
global flood can all be refuted without reference to biology at
all, let alone to the ToE.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
TomS
<fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com>, Barry stated..."
>
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H) wrote:
>
>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>>news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>
>that
>they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was proven beyond doubt to
>stand
>on it's own two feet (or is that four feet? I guess it depends on how it
>evolved).
>Creationists seem determined to destroy the system that gives them the computers
>they misuse, and they want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
While I agree with your intent, I would phrase it a little
bit differently. We have had creationists tell us that the
same evidence that is used for evolution is also evidence for
creation. That is because anything at all would be evidence,
in their minds, for creation: If the sky is blue, that is
evidence that it was created. If the sky is a nice cerise and
fuchsia paisley, that is because it was created.
The basic problem with creationism is that there is given
no definition or description of what creation might be: What
connection there is between the creator(s) (or designers) and
the things created; or: How we can tell the difference between
an act of creation and the normal workings of the natural world.
Tom S.
Reverend Lovejoy
I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
that everthing around them was created for them.
--
"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Lani girl
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
proves that
> they have no evidence for creation.
Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
origin of life.
Dunno
Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
Christians. Christians generally don't have a problem with
evolution. Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
True Christians.
(Headers trimmed to four groups)
.
TomS
<ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."
It didn't take geology to tell people that the six-day
creation couldn't be literally true. From earliest times,
people realized that there was something amiss about the
idea that the sun was put in the firmament to mark the
passage of days and nights ... but that before this was
done, there were three days and nights.
Tom S.
Packman
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Lani girl
"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> Christians.
Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
beliefs are.
> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> evolution.
Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> True Christians.
One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".
Denis Loubet
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Evolutionists attack Christianity? Why didn't I get the memo?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Michael Painter
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:cfb69.82741$Yd.37...@twister.austin.rr.com...
The one that said It's not necessary for evolutionists to attack
christianity, they do it better themselves or the one that warned against
Lani_girl.
The latter advised having a barf bag ready when you read her vile attacks.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what
> their actual beliefs are.
I see that you're "special" style of argument isn't reserved for
refutations of the theory of evolution.
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked
> with.
See above.
>> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True
> Christian", and as such you are unqualified to state what such
> people "really believe".
If you're quite done, God would like to have his throne back now.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Joe Zawadowski
Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
> that everthing around them was created for them.
>
> --
Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
Joe Z. a.a#249
--
"Freedom begins between the ears."
Edward Abbey
"Which ever way your pleasure tends,
if you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind"
Hunter
Bobby D. Bryant
> I see that you're "special" style of argument
s/you're/your/, of course.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dunno
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
> beliefs are.
Can't prove but I can ascertain. Many posters here have stated their
beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary when the
folks state their beliefs.
>
> > Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
So I've never met or talked with Christians. Chez Watt? I live in the
Bible Belt. Are they all hiding from me?
>
>
> > Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> > True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
> and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".
>
I'm made aware of what Fundies believe on a regular basis. They
regularly attempt to impose what they "really believe" on the rest
of the populace.
.
R. 'Bob' Dean
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> > evolution was proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly
> > wrong it would not prove creation.
>
> Yeah, and the funny thing is that while creationists see the theory
> of evolution as The Big Threat, in actual fact geology had already
> told us that literal interpretations of Genesis were incorrect well
> before Darwin came up with his theory.
>
> I.e., a six day creation, any sort of _recent_ creation, and a
> global flood can all be refuted without reference to biology at
> all, let alone to the ToE.
>
to develop a theory of creation. Indeed I would challenge any attempt
which begins with *creationism* as an objective in mind. Indeed
this would render any *theory of creation* as non-scientific!
The Bible is not a scientific document, therefore, any attempt to
base a theory of origins upon the Bible is futile and pointless.
In the first place, the Bible was not written by men setting
on a rock take direct vocal dictation from God. So, I do not
take the Bible as the literal word of Godd. I believe the
writers of the Bible wrote as they received inspiration of the
spirit of God.
However, they were limited by the lack of experiences
prevailing at the period of history.
However, I believe there is direct evidence for creation
separate and independent of the Bible and thus God is inferred
from direct evidence. My conclusion for this is based upon
the discoveries made by astronomers and astrophysicist over
the past three decades.
For reasons not fully understood the Christian Churches have
not taken notice of these discoveries and have ignored them.
I suspect the reasons is because of the difficulity of conciliating
the caring, loving personal God Christians worship and the
remote, impersonaldispassionate super-intelligence implied by the
cosmic anthropic principle.
>
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
> >
>
>
Jacek Podkanski
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H)
> wrote:
>
>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>> news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
I believe in creation and do not spend much time atacking evolution. I'd
rather discuss facts of life.
> proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was
> proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove
> creation. Creation must stand on it's own two feet (or is that four feet?
> I guess it depends on how it evolved). Creationists seem determined to
> destroy the system that gives them the computers they misuse, and they
Your views are new to me. Why creationists would do it. Do you that
creationists believe that computers appeared as a result of some kind of
abiogenesis and evolved to present form?
> want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
I think everybody should have chance to make their own mind instead being
indocrinated.
>
>
> -Barry
> ========
> Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
> Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
> Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
--
Jacek Podkanski
Lani girl
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > Christians.
> >
> > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> > beliefs are.
>
> Can't prove but I can ascertain.
Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
the Bible.
David Sienkiewicz
message news:nAe69.10958$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
But what has that to do with the composition of "evolution supporters" on
talk.origins, Lani girl?
< unmarked snip by Lani girl here - noted >
Frank J
Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
publications.
rossum
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
evolution.
rossum
Jon Fleming
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
"Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
the origin of life"
Or do you really have data to back that up? If so, please trot it
out.
While you're at it, what's your support for your claim that "...given
random genetic mutation and given the time frame that the
Evolutionists claim for the "evolution" of Man from his supposed ape
ancestor, that sufficient mutations could not have occurred." (That's
a direct quote from you, in <http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z12232381>).
<snip>
Demosthenes
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Evolutionary scientists spend their time searching for new evidence, or
teaching, inschools, about the evidence that exists.
One of the problems with the onslaught of the ignorance called creation is
that real scientists paid little attention to this fraud until creationists
spent more time thrying to force it into public schools.
Still, even now, the main defense against the ignorance of creationism has
been the legal system.
That's why the proponents of Intelligent Design are totally bypassing the
scientific establisment - sinc ethey have no evidence, they would only be
affective trying to sway public opinion and, by legislation catering to
public opinion, the law.
Forest Ghost
Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >
> > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.
Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
the book of Genesis is true?
And regarding this foolishness that Christians can't believe in
evolution, you should consider that 53% of americans believe in
evolution, yet 83% are Christian. Hmmmm. Oh, wait, let me guess. They
lied on the census question about religion. No, wait, the evil atheists
who control our liberal government lied about the numbers. No, it was
the homosexuals! No, the U.N.! Bwahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!! Here comes
the new world order!!!!
As always, I'm eager to see if you take option a: avoiding the issue or
option b: ignoring me.
-Forest Ghost
Thomas P.
I suspect it is because you are wrong. There is no scientific
discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.
>
>
>
> >
>> > Bobby Bryant
>> > Austin, Texas
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
Thomas P.
wrote:
One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman
Catholicism, does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is
where I was first told about the theory by a nun. I have known many
priests, brothers and nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything
negative about evolution. It was taken for granted as an established
scientific theory.
Dunno
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >
> > Can't prove but I can ascertain. <unsnip> Many posters here have
> > stated their beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary
> > when the folks state their beliefs. </unsnip>
>
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.
>
I really don't see the relevance of that comment to the point in
question unless you have some biblical material handy that supports
your assertion that evolutionists attack Christianity.
.
Dirk Murcray
Evolutionists refute creationist's distortions of evolution and attack
their baseless hypotheses. Individual evolutionists may attack
Christianity, but as it isn't a theory, evolutionists as a group do
not attack Christianity. The assertion is a common Tu Quoque ploy of
creationists.
Mark K. Bilbo
Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
[Woden]
Mark K. Bilbo
I take that back. I saw something in the RC group where she said
"Orthodox."
Apparently she's not RCC...
R. 'Bob' Dean
Thomas P. <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3d59979b...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
you have an alternative explanation?
David Jensen
rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in
<vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
><"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>>> Christians.
>>
>>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>>beliefs are.
>>
>>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>>> evolution.
>>
>>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
>1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
>evolution.
And we can add that most other Confessional Christians (if you don't
recite either the Apostles or Nicene Creed during Sunday Mass/Service,
you probably are not Confessional) have no problem with evolution,
either.
I'd be surprised if 10% of Christians were "scientific" Creationists.
Lani girl
The other poster admitted he can't prove anything, but insisted he can
"ascertain" things.
I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the satisfaction
of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.
THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
Lani girl
"Demosthenes" <hon...@man.com> wrote in message
news:yFf69.121025$uj.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> > proves that
> > > they have no evidence for creation.
> >
> > Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> > origin of life.
>
> The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
No less so than you, Demosthenes.
Lani girl
"Mark K. Bilbo" <n...@llow.ed> wrote in message
news:ulj860e...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:26:47 -0700, Thomas P. wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC), fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >>> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> >>> > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> >>> > just
> >>> proves that
> >>> > they have no evidence for creation.
> >>>
> >>> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> >>> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> >>> the origin of life.
> >>
> >>Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
> >>evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
> >>hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
> >>publications.
> >>
> >>
> > One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman Catholicism,
> > does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is where I was first
> > told about the theory by a nun. I have known many priests, brothers and
> > nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything negative about evolution.
> > It was taken for granted as an established scientific theory.
> >
>
> Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...
Nope, no more so than you do, Bilbo.
Lani girl
"Forest Ghost" <fores...@hatpap.com> wrote in message
news:3D59940C...@hatpap.com...
>
>
> Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > > Christians.
> > > >
> > > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> > actual
> > > > beliefs are.
> > >
> > > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
> >
> > Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by
reading
> > the Bible.
>
> Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
> feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
> the book of Genesis is true?
OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
age.
Lani girl
"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
> 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
> 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> evolution.
Except your Point Number 1 is false. Besides, you never talked with the
Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World of
Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
Lani girl
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:du0jlu8op9ofnp5q5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
>
> "Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> the origin of life"
Apparently it really bothered you that I took the corresponding statement,
made earlier by the Christian-hater, and simply turned it around on you
Atheists.
Good.
_AnonCoward
: > >However, I believe there is direct evidence for creation
: > >separate and independent of the Bible and thus God is inferred
: > >from direct evidence. My conclusion for this is based upon
: > >the discoveries made by astronomers and astrophysicist over
: > >the past three decades.
: > >For reasons not fully understood the Christian Churches have
: > >not taken notice of these discoveries and have ignored them.
: > >I suspect the reasons is because of the difficulity of conciliating
: > >the caring, loving personal God Christians worship and the
: > >remote, impersonaldispassionate super-intelligence implied by the
: > >cosmic anthropic principle.
: >
: > I suspect it is because you are wrong. There is no scientific
: > discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.
: >
: How do you explain the strong anthropic principle? Do
: you have an alternative explanation?
Ralf:
It would help, of course, to define terms. What precisely do you mean by the
"strong anthropic principle"?
Ralf
David Jensen
"Lani girl" <"©<:o(docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote in
<xPi69.11359$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
>female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
>age.
Science doesn't observe anything about a creation.
David Sienkiewicz
message news:vPi69.11358$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> > <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > >> Christians.
> > >
> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > >beliefs are.
> > >
> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > >> evolution.
> > >
> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> >
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
Have YOU?
Have you read the communication?
> > 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>
> A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
Which "orthodox" are we talking about?
> The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
> and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
> ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
> and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
> number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
Ah, well you, it would seem have decided that these are not REAL christians,
eh?
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false.
No, point 1 is true.
> Besides, you never talked with the
> Pope about that,
Neither have you.
> but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
Um, well, no.
You do that much better than he does.
> Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World
of
> Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
By whom?
David Sienkiewicz
Nope. Not quite.
You see, the Bible DOES "report" that GOD CREATED [emphasis added] but that
is NOT "indeed what science observes."
Unless, of course, you have some evidence for God and then can follow it up
with anything showing God doing any creating.
There's a difference between a claim and a "report," Lani girl.
But then, YOU get confused over who thought the Earth was flat...
David Sienkiewicz
CONSIDERABLY less than him from where I'm sitting, Lani girl.
Still snipping what you can't answer from all of these articles, I see.
>
David Sienkiewicz
Ah, there's that marvelous example of christian love.
You really are one pathetic individual, Lani girl; and a poor christian, to
boot.
By the by, just how many atheists do you suppose you're addressing?
I'd like to know so that we can get a good idea who you mean by "you
Atheists."
David Sienkiewicz
Having trouble keeping your attributions straight, Lani girl?
"The other poster" was Dunno.
> I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the
satisfaction
> of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.
And that wasn't at all relevant to the point under discussion.
> THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
'Fraid not, Lani girl.
R. 'Bob' Dean
_AnonCoward <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:1_i69.15344$Xa.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
the universe as a *fine-tuned machine*, so many are the delicately
balanced constants and coincidences all of which seem arbitrary, but
which are essential for the appearance of life in the universe.
Bob
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
Michael Nash
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> proves that
> > they have no evidence for creation.
>
> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
How much time does the pope spend attacking Christianity? IIRC he's an
evolutionist...
--
Michael Nash
aa # 1651
Reinstated EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers
Undermining Christian Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing
Things)
Founder, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
*************
I pledge resistance to the flag of the United States of Americhrist, and to
the theocapitalist empire for which it stands: one nation undereducated,
irredeemably, with liberty and justice for all major campaign contributors.
Michael Nash
news:cfb69.82741$Yd.37...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> > proves that
> > > they have no evidence for creation.
> >
> > Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> > origin of life.
>
Memo? There was no memo...
<EAC shredder>
WHIRRRRRR............
_AnonCoward
Ralf:
I want to make sure that I understand, so let me paraphrase and tell me if
I'm correct in this: the "strong anthropic principle" is the idea that the
universe generally, and conditions on the earth specifically, are fine tuned
for life. That is, there is a ... bias? ... in universe for the emergence
of, and support for, living things.
Close?
Btw - why the "strong" descriptor in the term. What is the "weak anthropic
principle'?
Ralf
Thomas McDonald
Ralf,
Here's my stab at answering your question. Please
note that this is from memory, and I might have
screwed the pooch in what follows. (If I did,
don't you all think that's punishment enough? :-) )
IIRC, the weak anthropic principle simply notices
that, if any of a number of different factors were
slightly different in the early universe
(resulting in a slightly different set of physical
laws), life as we know it could not have arisen.
This is different from the strong anthropic
principle in that it does not involve
teleological determinism WRT _our_ coming into
being. That is, the universe was not designed for
us; we were not in some way "forseen" or
inevitable, but merely allowed under the physical
laws of the universe.
If there is only one universe, ever,
anywhere/anywhen, then it is either a happy
accident that conditions were such that life as we
know it could arise (weak anthropic principle); or
a creator of some sort set things up specifically
to allow life like us to arise (strong anthropic
principle).
However, some cosmologists and physicists think
that there may be more than one universe; perhaps
an infinity of universes. In that scenario, there
may be billions of universes with physical laws
such that no life could ever form. There might
also be billions of other universes in which the
physical laws are such that life of very different
types to ours exists.
In this scenario, we are here because probalility,
operating on a very large number of variables, on
a very large number of universes, makes it likely
that a universe like ours would arise; and, having
arisen, in some small fraction of these
"like-ours" universes, life would arise that would
notice itself, and wonder about these things.
Now I'll stand aside and wait for folks who really
know to answer you.
Tom McDonald
Thomas P.
<rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
existence of a god.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
Thomas P.
That alone is good reason to doubt it.
>
>--
>Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
>________________________________________________________________
>If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
>believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
>existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
>to believe in him.
>
>[Woden]
>
Thomas P.
Gyudon Z
Actually, science observes seven different degrees of hermaphroditism and a
number of syndromes related to nondisjuction of sex chromosomes.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
R. 'Bob' Dean
Jim Cowling
>
>> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
>> existence of a god.
>>
>Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is, in
any case, not a scientific discovery.
--
Spamblock: There is no 'p' in my address.
Thomas P.
<rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yes, so what? There are still no scientific discoveries requiring in
any manner the existence of a god.
Thomas P.
Cowling) wrote:
>In article <56m69.17973$g47.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "R. 'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
>>> existence of a god.
>>>
>>Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
>
>The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is, in
>any case, not a scientific discovery.
But it sounds impressive doesn't it?
>
>--
>Spamblock: There is no 'p' in my address.
Thomas P.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:23:32 GMT, bigk...@pscowling.net (Jim
>Cowling) wrote:
>
>>In article <56m69.17973$g47.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "R. 'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
>>>> existence of a god.
>>>>
>>>Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
>>
>>The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is, in
>>any case, not a scientific discovery.
>
>But it sounds impressive doesn't it?
A mental picture of chlorine-breathing life forms on Monistat III
telling their less ignorant brethren that the universe must be finely
tuned for their kind of life because they exist, and after all, life
requires silicon, chlorine etc. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
Dunno
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081319...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > > > Christians.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> > > actual
> > > > > beliefs are.
> > > >
> > > > Can't prove but I can ascertain. <unsnip> Many posters here have
> > > > stated their beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary
> > > > when the folks state their beliefs. </unsnip>
> > >
> > >
> > > Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by
> reading
> > > the Bible.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I really don't see the relevance of that comment to the point in
> > question unless you have some biblical material handy that supports
> > your assertion that evolutionists attack Christianity.
>
>
> The other poster admitted he can't prove anything, but insisted he can
> "ascertain" things.
>
> I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the satisfaction
> of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.
Which is relevant to your assertion that evolutionists attack
Christianity how?
>
> THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
>
What the other poster was asking is what have you ascertained
by reading the Bible that supports your assertion that evolutionists
attack Christianity. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the mark.
.
R. 'Bob' Dean
Jim Cowling <bigk...@pscowling.net> wrote in message
news:EHm69.138853$v53.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In article <56m69.17973$g47.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "R.
'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
> >> existence of a god.
> >>
> >Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
>
> The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is,
in
> any case, not a scientific discovery.
>
has been monkeying around with the laws of physics. The alternative
explanation i.e. that there are an infinite number of universes. This
supposition, has absolutely no direct or empirical evidence. There
is no reason to believe these infinate universes exist except as an
excape from reality.
Indeed the anthropic universe was a discovery by astronomers and
astrophysicist. It is, therefore, scientific.
Derek Stevenson
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
>
> > 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>
> A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
>
> The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant
third,
> and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
> ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as
ministers,
> and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
> number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
>
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false. Besides, you never talked with the
> Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
>
> Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World
of
> Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
Despite considering some Catholic doctrines to be evil, twisted and
inhuman, I'd always had a certain amount of respect for Catholicism. This
was due to my perception that it had a positive attitude towards science
(at least in the last couple of centuries) and a much lesser tendency than
Protestantism to spawn all manner of nutjobs.
I appreciate your sterling efforts, as well as those of Mark Johnson and
Pagano, to disabuse me of the latter delusion. I still think wacked-out
Catholics are less common than wacked-out Protestants, but it seems clear
that I must revise my estimate of their relative abundance.
Lani girl
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:93fjlus0sg882l7b1...@4ax.com...
Try telling THAT to the scientists who are proponents of the Big Bang
Theory, or to those Junk Scientists who are proponents of Evolution Theory!
Dick
(Joe Zawadowski) wrote:
>In article <I9a69.121673$8M1.25...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Reverend
>Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
>> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
>> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
>> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
>> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
>> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
>> that everthing around them was created for them.
>>
>> --
>
>Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
>baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
>'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
>evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
>
>Joe Z. a.a#249
Hi Joe,
I wanted to jump into this thread and your comments are close to what
I wanted to say.
It looks to me that the rejection of the theist efforts to find more
about what appears to be "intelligent design" as opposed to
"spontaneous evolution" has been combined with the churches'
protection of their dogma.
I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
evolution." Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
building block could simultaneously come into being.
When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
(in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
to be useful in survival.
The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
hand.
Jon Fleming
<"©<:o(docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:du0jlu8op9ofnp5q5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
>> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> >> Christians.
>> >
>> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
>actual
>> >beliefs are.
>> >
>> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>>
>> You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
>>
>> "Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
>> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
>> the origin of life"
>
>
>Apparently it really bothered you that I took the corresponding statement,
>made earlier by the Christian-hater, and simply turned it around on you
>Atheists.
I note that you snipped and did not respond to my polite request for
supporting data.
I note that you snipped and did not respond to my oft-repeated request
for support for your claim that "...given random genetic mutation and
given the time frame that the Evolutionists claim for the "evolution"
of Man from his supposed ape ancestor, that sufficient mutations could
not have occurred."
Bad.
>
>Good.
Dick
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:52:51 +0000 (UTC), in article
><fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com>, Barry stated..."
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H) wrote:
>>
>>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>>>news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>>
>>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>>
>>The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just proves
>>that
>>they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was proven beyond doubt to
>>be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove creation. Creation must
>>stand
>>on it's own two feet (or is that four feet? I guess it depends on how it
>>evolved).
>>Creationists seem determined to destroy the system that gives them the computers
>>they misuse, and they want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
>
> While I agree with your intent, I would phrase it a little
>bit differently. We have had creationists tell us that the
>same evidence that is used for evolution is also evidence for
>creation. That is because anything at all would be evidence,
>in their minds, for creation: If the sky is blue, that is
>evidence that it was created. If the sky is a nice cerise and
>fuchsia paisley, that is because it was created.
>
> The basic problem with creationism is that there is given
>no definition or description of what creation might be: What
>connection there is between the creator(s) (or designers) and
>the things created; or: How we can tell the difference between
>an act of creation and the normal workings of the natural world.
>
> Tom S.
I see the same problem Tom. But try and get any discussion going to
define what are the qualities a intelligent designer might have.
Those that don't want any part in such discussion and just want to
pounce. Unfortunately, this fun game of attack and counter attack
also gets in the way of reasonable investigation.
Fortunately I thought about the questions of creations outside
biblical considerations for years before finding these newsgroups. I
can well understand the beauty and effort put into forming an
understanding of the evolution of the universe and life. I have no
need to defend a creed of any sort. But, I do have a need to explore
possibilities of an intelligent design. I fail to see how this
interest need defense, but many cry "proof, proof." How can there be
any proofs when the very basic questions remain ill formed and a
consensus on the how to describe such a function yet to be formed?
I have been getting upset with the media this week, time after time
they would ask their guest about Bush and the Iraq situation, "Has the
president made his case?" I have seen no effort by the
Administration to make its case. No one appeared before the
congressional committee in its brief two day information meetings, no
presidential speeches to the nation laying out a case. So, why was
the media asking everyone that was interviewed, "Did the
Administration make its case?"
I feel the constant string of "prove it, prove it" are much the same.
How can anyone prove anything without a serious effort to gather
information, define terms, devise ways of testing. How can those that
have found an answer ruling out intelligence, be upset with some that
want to look?
It is interesting to wonder what would be an appropriate group to make
such an effort. The established religions cannot for any answer that
did not support their dogma would have to be compromised. Scientists
that started using "god did it" to explain gaps in information, would
be ostracized.
Thanks to these newsgroups I am becoming exposed to some effort by
others on both sides. Smolin has laid out a readable review of the
evolution of the cosmos in his book. I just bought Dembski's "Science
and Evidence for Design in the universe.
So, lighten up, not all 'creationists' are the same.
Dick
As I see it no destruction is in anyway desired by me at least. I see
"intelligent design" as a part of evolution. After all, what we are
leaving behind is the concept that some god thought up the universe
and it appeared. Without the effort of so many to find the clues and
show how most of evolution could have happened we would still have to
accept the 'god did it' explanation for everything.
Definitions, descriptions, conjectures, test designs all are missing
in these discussions. Attacking those that have no answers does not
remove the question, "Is their intelligence indicated in evolution?"
If so what are the qualities and how can they be tested?
R. 'Bob' Dean
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:pajklu01sjsaj6ddg...@4ax.com...
reality. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that a silicon
based life form exist anywhere in the universe(s)! But hope springs
eternal. The fine-tuned fundamental constants are real.
Scott
"Derek Stevenson" <derekste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajdmqk$1al39q$1...@ID-139629.news.dfncis.de...
You're mistaken, Lani girl, by her own admittance, isn't Roman Catholic.
Pagano, I believe, doesn't think JPII is the legit Pope; I've asked him and
he refused to answer to that question. Mark? I haven't read any of his posts
for a long time. He and Pagano seem to think of themselves as pre-VII
Catholics.
Scott
macaddicted
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> > <"©<:o)docw®"°°"_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > >> Christians.
> > >
> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > >beliefs are.
> > >
> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > >> evolution.
> > >
> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> >
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
Actually the Church began to look more favorably on evolution in 1950
(Humani Generis). We do not need to speak to the Pope to verify the
first point- we have his speaches. The one to which the writer is
referring is probably his 1996 speach to the Pontifical Academy of
Science.
[snip]
>
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
Well, that is kind of a large step to take....
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false. [snip ad hominem]
It is true, with this caveat: "Consequently, theories of evolution
which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the
mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere
epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. " (
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html . Message to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences. October 22, 1996. paragraph 5.)
[snip]
--
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
David Sienkiewicz
Nothing like a bit of a diversion, is there, Lani girl?
Unless you're being remarkably unobservant, you know that this is not the
sort of thing to which he referred, now don't you?
Can you provide evidence for supernatural creation or not?
Reverend Lovejoy
news:f1oklucdu3j7ero7o...@4ax.com...
"seem impossible" does not make it impossible. All evidence points that it
did happen, and not necessarily simultaneously. Remember that evolution is a
long, slow process. It started with simplistic single celled life,
reproducing asexually. The stem cell evolved as there became a need for it.
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
The material universe did not "evolve", it merely followed the laws of
physics, and took 10 billion years to reach a point life could start to
evolve. I suppose you could mean a "chemical evolution" in which the most
stable chemical configurations tend to stick around longer. As for
biological evolution, the speed is directly dependent on the number of
evolutionary pressures on a species.
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
More explanations are forthcoming. Science increases our knowledge of the
world every day.
Spiritual belief is hardwired into the brain. It has to do with our
intelligence granting us the ability to recognize patterns, and our tendency
to remember hits but not misses. Creative talents stem as a byproduct from
our ability to logically reason (math) and our need to communicate
(linguistic). The ability to picture things as they "might be" is decidedly
an evolutionary advantage, because it gives us the ability to plan ahead.
Beauty and love are innate senses that incite us to protect things important
to us, and vital to our own survival and the survival of our genes. This is
why we "love" our spouses, family, babies, children, and our tribe.
> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
> hand.
They are not rejected. Some things just take a little bit more reasoning to
explain than others.
--
"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Michael Painter
"R. 'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:B1t69.59952$lP6.3...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Then you admit that life is possible in a universe not as "fine tuned" as
ours.
If not them this super intelligence would not be able to fiddle with the
laws.
For this to be science a theory would have to be put forth.
What is that theory?
Kirstin
> Jim Cowling <bigk...@pscowling.net> wrote in message
> news:EHm69.138853$v53.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > In article <56m69.17973$g47.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "R.
> 'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
> > >> existence of a god.
> > >>
> > >Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
> >
> > The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is,
> in
> > any case, not a scientific discovery.
> >
> The simplest and most obvious answer is that some super-intelligence
> has been monkeying around with the laws of physics. The alternative
> explanation i.e. that there are an infinite number of universes.
don't fall into the false-dichotomy trap. these are not the only two
possibilities - one (among, i'm sure, many!) other is that we fit the
universe quite well because all life that didn't fit it never got a chance
to come about, or died shortly thereafter if it did
> This
> supposition, has absolutely no direct or empirical evidence.
the existence of a "super-intelligence" that has the capability of
"monkeying around with the laws of physics" has even less direct
or empirical evidence
> There
> is no reason to believe these infinate universes exist except as an
> excape from reality.
> Indeed the anthropic universe was a discovery by astronomers and
> astrophysicist. It is, therefore, scientific.
it is a philosophical idea, not a scientific theory. not every scientists
do and say is science: pacifism isn't scientific because einstein espoused
it, bongos aren't scientific because feynman played them, and the bhagavad-
gita doesn't suddenly become a scientific test just because oppenheimer
was fond of quoting it
kirstinn
Thomas P.
<rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The universe exists as it is. That is real.
Thomas P.
<rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Jim Cowling <bigk...@pscowling.net> wrote in message
>news:EHm69.138853$v53.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> In article <56m69.17973$g47.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, "R.
>'Bob' Dean" <rb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I repeat; there is no scientific discovery requiring in any manner the
>> >> existence of a god.
>> >>
>> >Have you even heard of the anthropic principle?
>>
>> The anthropic principle does not require the existence of a god, and is,
>in
>> any case, not a scientific discovery.
>>
>The simplest and most obvious answer is that some super-intelligence
>has been monkeying around with the laws of physics. The alternative
>explanation i.e. that there are an infinite number of universes. This
>supposition, has absolutely no direct or empirical evidence. There
>is no reason to believe these infinate universes exist except as an
>excape from reality.
>
>Indeed the anthropic universe was a discovery by astronomers and
>astrophysicist. It is, therefore, scientific.
There is no scientific theory called the anthropic principle. Try to
grasp that.
>
>>
>> --
>> Spamblock: There is no 'p' in my address.
>
>
>
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:39:53 +0000 (UTC), joseph.z...@duke.edu
>(Joe Zawadowski) wrote:
>
>>In article <I9a69.121673$8M1.25...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Reverend
>>Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
>>> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
>>> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
>>> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
>>> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
>>> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
>>> that everthing around them was created for them.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
>>baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
>>'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
>>evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
>>
>>Joe Z. a.a#249
>
>
>Hi Joe,
>
>I wanted to jump into this thread and your comments are close to what
>I wanted to say.
>
>It looks to me that the rejection of the theist efforts to find more
>about what appears to be "intelligent design" as opposed to
>"spontaneous evolution"
Spontaneous evolution?
>has been combined with the churches'
>protection of their dogma.
>
>I reject "Revealed dogma".
No you don't
> I and some others that post in these
>groups are looking for how creation
Shouldn't you first establish that there was a creation, or was that
revealed to you?
>has happened and some of us see
>big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
>evolution."
Is spontaneous evolution another creationist scam?
>Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
>the "Singularity"
Evolution from the Singularity? Where do you get this stuff from?
>I endorse them and want more information to be
>discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
>that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
>the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
>impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
>building block could simultaneously come into being.
Perhaps you should take some actual courses in biology. It might help
you with your questions.
>
>When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
>universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
>evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
>
>At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
>explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
>craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
>diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
>emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
>composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
>(in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
>to be useful in survival.
>
>The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
>it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
>hand.
>
They are not. I would love to see some evidence.
Mark Fox
> There is no scientific
> discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.
>
Of course science is the study of cause and effect, a process
applicable only to repeatable events. So far, everything that does not
fit within that model is labled "random chance" by the scientific
community. Random chance is not a scientific principle in itself. Its
only a fancy way of saying "we don't know what the heck is going on
here". This in itself is not a bad thing. Only when someone says "no,
the universe wasn't created by God because it was created by random
chance" that we have stepped outside valid science into the absurd.
The big bang is a nice theory but it is new and needs a lot of work.
We are still assuming that the rules of phisics don't change over
time, vast periods of time. We have only recently found that the rules
of physics, which we thought for 500 years to be constant for all
speeds, do indeed change when velocity approaches the speed of light.
It will be fun to watch this theory mature over the years and get a
little better glimpse into the details of how God created the
universe.
Derek Stevenson
news:f1oklucdu3j7ero7o...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
> groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
> big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
> evolution."
Perhaps you should start by considering the possibility that at least some
of those apparent "unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps" are holes in
your personal understanding of the science, rather than in the science
itself.
> Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
> the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
> discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
> that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
> the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
> impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
> building block could simultaneously come into being.
Here's an example of what I mean. You "see no way that such complex parts
to such a basic building block could simultaneously come into being". Have
you considered the possibility:
a) that the fact that *you* see no way that this could have happened does
not prevent others, perhaps better informed than yourself, from seeing a
way; or
b) that they didn't have to come into being *simultaneously*?
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve?
We're talking about two different kinds of "evolution" here. And what,
exactly, is the problem?
> It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
No kidding.
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations:
Explanations *have* been proposed for these and other phenomena, you
know -- or do you? Have you considered the explanations that have been
presented already? What are they, and why do you consider them inadequate?
> Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
>
> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
> hand.
Where do you see that happening?
Tom
> > There is no scientific
> > discovery requiring in any manner the existence of a god.
>Mark: Of course science is the study of cause and effect, a process
> applicable only to repeatable events. So far, everything that does not
> fit within that model is labled "random chance" by the scientific
> community. Random chance is not a scientific principle in itself. Its
> only a fancy way of saying "we don't know what the heck is going on
> here". This in itself is not a bad thing. Only when someone says "no,
> the universe wasn't created by God because it was created by random
> chance" that we have stepped outside valid science into the absurd.
Tom: The only absurdity here is the statement above that was made by you.
Just where did you get the "facts" to write such a ludicrous piece of crap?
>Mark: The big bang is a nice theory but it is new and needs a lot of work.
> We are still assuming that the rules of phisics don't change over
> time, vast periods of time. We have only recently found that the rules
> of physics, which we thought for 500 years to be constant for all
> speeds, do indeed change when velocity approaches the speed of light.
Tom: Really? I thought the rules of physics were inviolate over time. Which
law of physics has been nullified?
>Mark: It will be fun to watch this theory mature over the years and get a
> little better glimpse into the details of how God created the
> universe.
Tom: It will be hilarious when you get a clue as to what you are trying to
say.
Mark Whickman
> I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
> groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
> big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
> evolution." Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
> the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
> discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
> that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
> the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
> impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
> building block could simultaneously come into being.
Plain membrane is fairly simple - soap forms a good analogue of it in water,
with sodium replacing phosphate. DNA is unlikely to have been the original
information molecule, it's even unlikely that the first living things had an
information carrier except their own structure. The first molecules were
likely to have been rybozymes, which are extremely simple and very stable.
They didn't all need to come into simultaneous being either.
>
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
Just remember the big jumps.
Organic molecules - self reproducing molecules
Self reproducers - isolated (membrane contained)
Membrane containers - organised containers (bacteria)
bacteria - bacterial colonies
bacterial colonies - Eukaryotic cells
Eukaryotic cells - multicellular organisms
All that changes between the first multicellular organisms and mammals are
some changes to major layout (dipoblasts to triploblasts) and a little
information change.
>
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs.
There's an area of the brain linked to it, it may have been beneficial at
one point and has not yet been sufficinetly detrimental to be fatal.
How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
At face they aren't, but they help bind human groups together, which is
advantageous.