Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If you can answer this then you'll have a case for evolution...
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Redeemed Clay
Dec 14, 2011, 8:55:53 AM12/14/11
to
evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
person to think things through.
the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.
the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body is easily found on the
Internet.
none of these elements are alive in and of themselves. the living human being is not alive by
reason of the nonliving elements of the earth he is made of... life is not of this world.
before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive. it cant be
done without the Living God having created and putting into created things of His life.
well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth and put
into Adam, God's own life.
that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.
the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God from the elements that are in the
earth and not possessing life. God caused of His life to bring to life all living things.
everyone knows this since God took it upon Himself to instill in man the awareness of His presence
just as we read in Romans chapter one... thus rendering everyone " without excuse. " with that, God
becomes justified in judging everyone according to their deeds.
not so in the realm of ' science. ' the whole idea of evolution is an attempt to quell the fearful
spirit in those who know they've got to face the Day of Judgement guilty.
it is not therefore in the best interest of the evolutionist to upset his belief system with the
truth. he'll continue on watching cartoons which evolve apes into man and believe what his guru's
tell him he is to believe and without a shred of evidence beyond " maybe; perhaps; possibly; etc. "
evolutionists defend a myth. they defend an anti-Christ religion which tells them there is no God
to answer to.
Caranx latus
Dec 14, 2011, 10:11:08 AM12/14/11
to
On 14/12/2011 8:55 AM, Redeemed Clay wrote:
>
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Thanks for illustrating the fallacy of division so very well. Which
>
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
logical fallacy will you be demonstrating next?
<snip>
JohnN
Dec 14, 2011, 10:33:15 AM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 8:55 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:
A demonstration of the Home School understanding of evolution,
biology, science in general, and religion.
JohnN
wrote:
A demonstration of the Home School understanding of evolution,
biology, science in general, and religion.
JohnN
raven1
Dec 14, 2011, 10:51:49 AM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
<John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
<John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
dishonesty, or both.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2011, 12:59:56 PM12/14/11
to
accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power . You dont have that much
faith , neither do i , or anyone else. Stop rejecting your
Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
forms . Instead get to know him personally .
Devils Advocaat
Dec 14, 2011, 1:19:55 PM12/14/11
to
Ken
Dec 14, 2011, 1:39:19 PM12/14/11
to
raven1
Dec 14, 2011, 2:11:46 PM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:59:56 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> dishonesty, or both.
>
>Well, how did life begin ?
Irrelevant to the observed fact of biological evolution.
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> dishonesty, or both.
>
>Well, how did life begin ?
> Talk about how life diversified
>accidentally
>, after you explain how life began accidentally .
> How
>did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
>Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
>equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power .
false. Why do you repeat it?
> You dont have that much
>faith , neither do i , or anyone else.
explanation for natural phenomena. Most humans grow dissatisfied with
that sort of hand-waving by the time they're six.
>Stop rejecting your
>Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
>forms . Instead get to know him personally .
osugeography
Dec 14, 2011, 2:14:54 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 11:59 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Dave.
For an Atheist or Agnostic, your question, roughly paraphrased,
becomes:
"Well, how did GOD begin? Talk about how GOD diversified (came about)
accidentally, before you ask someone to explain how life began (which
is not what evolution addresses).
How did GOD begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause? Some
Creationists tell us that to believe in evolution, you must have faith
equivalent to 1 in (sic) 10^40,000 power, but they are powerless to
explain logically and with reason, how GOD, the Creator of the
Universe, came into being, something requiring almost infinitely
longer odds.. For Creationists or Fundamentalists (I use that phrase
loosely) to believe that, they must have Faith which ignores reason
and logic. Stop rejecting your intellect. which if there was a God,
would be his or her (I have trouble imagining a God with dangly parts)
greatest gift to you. If you wish to believe, have faith, but don't
try to prove it scientifically.
Dave, and I write this personally, and maybe a bit out of place here:
Try to ignore the flood of ad hominems directed towards you,
especially those regarding your sexuality, past or present, real or
imagined by others. I say that in all sincerity.
The flood of comments is y are inappropriate, and wrong, should not be
here, and should cease.
Good wishes to you, in any season.
Your Atheist / Agnostic "counterpart", (Or something like that)
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
wrote:
For an Atheist or Agnostic, your question, roughly paraphrased,
becomes:
"Well, how did GOD begin? Talk about how GOD diversified (came about)
accidentally, before you ask someone to explain how life began (which
is not what evolution addresses).
How did GOD begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause? Some
Creationists tell us that to believe in evolution, you must have faith
equivalent to 1 in (sic) 10^40,000 power, but they are powerless to
explain logically and with reason, how GOD, the Creator of the
Universe, came into being, something requiring almost infinitely
longer odds.. For Creationists or Fundamentalists (I use that phrase
loosely) to believe that, they must have Faith which ignores reason
and logic. Stop rejecting your intellect. which if there was a God,
would be his or her (I have trouble imagining a God with dangly parts)
greatest gift to you. If you wish to believe, have faith, but don't
try to prove it scientifically.
Dave, and I write this personally, and maybe a bit out of place here:
Try to ignore the flood of ad hominems directed towards you,
especially those regarding your sexuality, past or present, real or
imagined by others. I say that in all sincerity.
The flood of comments is y are inappropriate, and wrong, should not be
here, and should cease.
Good wishes to you, in any season.
Your Atheist / Agnostic "counterpart", (Or something like that)
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Ken
Dec 14, 2011, 1:41:56 PM12/14/11
to
Why is that, Dumbwit?
Raven1 posted: I know that your modus operandi is to run away from
questions you
can't answer, but I'm particularly interested in one that I asked.
You claimed that the "soul" remains conscious after death.
Again, why?
It certainly isn't conscious around the clock when the body is alive.
Please explain exactly how that works, with supporting citations
from both scripture and scientific literature
Dakota
Dec 14, 2011, 2:27:56 PM12/14/11
to
Buddythunder
Dec 14, 2011, 4:01:05 PM12/14/11
to
your saviour's eye this way?
BJ
Dec 14, 2011, 4:34:32 PM12/14/11
to
Thou camest from high above.
Thou sneezed,
From out thy nostrils,
A gift of boundless love.
The Universe around us
Emergeth from thy Nose.
Now we await,
With eager expectation,
Thy handkerchief,
To bring us back to Thee.
Sulfate
Dec 14, 2011, 5:43:57 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 11:59 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
you're looking for.
wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>
> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
> > >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
> > No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> > dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ?
You should find or start a conversation on abiogenesis if that's what
>
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>
> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
> > >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
> > No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> > dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ?
you're looking for.
Don Kresch
Dec 14, 2011, 6:03:53 PM12/14/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
<John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
come from some other life. What life created god? If god is uncreated,
then life doesn't have to come from life. Or else you're a trolling
hypocrite.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Andy W
Dec 14, 2011, 6:27:51 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 1:55 pm, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:
imperfect copies of themselves, such as every living thing on Earth.
That's it. It works exactly the same no matter which origin of life
you prefer, or even if you don't know that information, which as it
happens we don't.
>
> even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
> monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
And answers the question: with an earlier ancestor that was slightly
different, all the way back to the beginning.
> he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
> nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
> person to think things through.
>
> the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
> any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
> want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
> not alive.
And yet you are composed only of these elements and nothing more.
Clearly some combination of them works. Here's the important point you
have not understood: Life is not something your body _has_ but
something it _does_. It is a process, not a thing.
Oh, I can't be bothered with the rest of your stupidity right now.
<snip remainder>
Andy
wrote:
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No, actually it doesn't. Evolution depends on things that can make
imperfect copies of themselves, such as every living thing on Earth.
That's it. It works exactly the same no matter which origin of life
you prefer, or even if you don't know that information, which as it
happens we don't.
>
> even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
> monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
different, all the way back to the beginning.
> he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
> nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
> person to think things through.
>
> the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
> any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
> want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
> not alive.
Clearly some combination of them works. Here's the important point you
have not understood: Life is not something your body _has_ but
something it _does_. It is a process, not a thing.
Oh, I can't be bothered with the rest of your stupidity right now.
<snip remainder>
Andy
Budikka666
Dec 14, 2011, 7:38:27 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 7:55 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:
mutations, natural selection and other elements all of which have been
observed in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is a fact. The Theory
of Evolution is the only scientific explanation for this fact.
But let's you and me formally debate *abiogenesis* right here in this
thread. You go ahead and post your first item of *positive*
*scientific* or *independent* *objective* evidence that some god
started life, and I'll counter that and present an item of positive
scientific evidence supporting abiogenesis, and let's see who runs out
first.
Budikka
wrote:
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
No it doesn't. That's abiogenesis. *Evolution* depends on inheritable
mutations, natural selection and other elements all of which have been
observed in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is a fact. The Theory
of Evolution is the only scientific explanation for this fact.
But let's you and me formally debate *abiogenesis* right here in this
thread. You go ahead and post your first item of *positive*
*scientific* or *independent* *objective* evidence that some god
started life, and I'll counter that and present an item of positive
scientific evidence supporting abiogenesis, and let's see who runs out
first.
Budikka
kni...@baawa.com
Dec 14, 2011, 8:09:33 PM12/14/11
to
>Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
>accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally .
'Accidentally' is one of those creationist power words that has no
>accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally .
meaning. Nothing was accidental or designed. The beauty of it all is
simple.... shit happens.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Paul David Wright
Dec 14, 2011, 8:41:28 PM12/14/11
to
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> Path:
> news.albasani.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!
newsfeed.hal
> -mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!
news.highw
> inds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!
t16g2000
> vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "IlBe...@gmail.com"
> <ilbe...@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,alt.philosophy,alt.antichristnet,alt.talk.
c
> reationism Subject: Re: If you can answer this then you'll have a case
> for evolution... Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:59:56 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID:
> <9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
> References: <6dtge7pcq2l2evtva...@4ax.com>
> <ofhhe7dfnv1h25e2o...@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 98.99.130.230 Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1323885596 23860 127.0.0.1 (14 Dec 2011
> 17:59:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=98.99.130.230;
> posting-account=SHQlgQoAAADxiz_aHm7UQcopClOL0Bkw User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1;
> WOW64; Trident/5.0),gzip(gfe) Xref: news.albasani.net
> alt.agnosticism:97178 alt.atheism:2263202 alt.philosophy:485101
> alt.antichristnet:3695 alt.talk.creationism:484136
And it's not part of evolution, no matter how many times you bring it
up.
--
PDW
Check out my blog:
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42
news:9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> Path:
> news.albasani.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!
newsfeed.hal
> -mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!
news.highw
> inds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!
t16g2000
> vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "IlBe...@gmail.com"
> <ilbe...@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,alt.philosophy,alt.antichristnet,alt.talk.
c
> reationism Subject: Re: If you can answer this then you'll have a case
> for evolution... Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:59:56 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID:
> <9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
> References: <6dtge7pcq2l2evtva...@4ax.com>
> <ofhhe7dfnv1h25e2o...@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 98.99.130.230 Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1323885596 23860 127.0.0.1 (14 Dec 2011
> 17:59:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:59:56 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=98.99.130.230;
> posting-account=SHQlgQoAAADxiz_aHm7UQcopClOL0Bkw User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1;
> WOW64; Trident/5.0),gzip(gfe) Xref: news.albasani.net
> alt.agnosticism:97178 alt.atheism:2263202 alt.philosophy:485101
> alt.antichristnet:3695 alt.talk.creationism:484136
>
> On Dec 14, 9:51=A0am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of
>> >the e=
> On Dec 14, 9:51=A0am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of
> arth which are not alive.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ?
We don't know.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ?
And it's not part of evolution, no matter how many times you bring it
up.
--
PDW
Check out my blog:
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42
Paul David Wright
Dec 14, 2011, 8:42:06 PM12/14/11
to
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:93ba8738-59d8-422c...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> alt.talk.creationism:484138
>
> On Dec 14, 5:59=A0pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . =A0
>> faith , neither do i , or anyone else. =A0 Stop rejecting your
news:93ba8738-59d8-422c...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> alt.talk.creationism:484138
>
> On Dec 14, 5:59=A0pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:51=A0am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> > >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of
>> > >the=
>>
>> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>
>> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>> > >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of
> earth which are not alive.
>>
>> > No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> > dishonesty, or both.
>>
>> Well, how did life begin ? =A0 Talk about how life diversified
>>
>> > No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
>> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>> > dishonesty, or both.
>>
>> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . =A0
>> How did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
>> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
>> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power =A0. =A0 You dont have that much
>> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
>> faith , neither do i , or anyone else. =A0 Stop rejecting your
>> Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
>> forms . =A0 =A0Instead get to know him personally =A0.
>
> Why do you continue to lie about what others have said or written?
>
Because he's totally unteachable.
> Why do you continue to lie about what others have said or written?
>
Paul David Wright
Dec 14, 2011, 8:43:34 PM12/14/11
to
osugeography <osugeo...@aol.com> wrote in
news:9c7636fd-424e-4480...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:34:32 +1000, BJ wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2011 5:27 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
AAACHO!!!
news:9c7636fd-424e-4480...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:34:32 +1000, BJ wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2011 5:27 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 1:11 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:59:56 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:59:56 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
>>>> <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
>>>>>>> of the earth which are not alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>>>>>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>>>>>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to
>>>>>> make the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>>>>>> dishonesty, or both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, how did life begin ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements
>>>>>>> of the earth which are not alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
>>>>>> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
>>>>>> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to
>>>>>> make the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
>>>>>> dishonesty, or both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, how did life begin ?
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to the observed fact of biological evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Talk about how life diversified
>>>>> accidentally
>>>>
>>>> Evolution is not accidental.
>>>>> accidentally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> , after you explain how life began accidentally .
>>>>
>>>> Neither is chemistry.
>>>>> , after you explain how life began accidentally .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How
>>>>> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
>>>>
>>>> Chemistry.
>>>>> How
>>>>> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
>>>>> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power .
>>>>
>>>>> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
>>>>> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power .
>>>>
>>>> Adding to the lies does not help your cause. You know this claim to
>>>> be false. Why do you repeat it?
>>>>
>>>> be false. Why do you repeat it?
>>>>
>>>>> You dont have that much
>>>>> faith , neither do i , or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>>> faith , neither do i , or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> It requires no faith at all to reject "it happened by magic" as an
>>>> explanation for natural phenomena. Most humans grow dissatisfied
>>>> with that sort of hand-waving by the time they're six.
>>>>
>>>> explanation for natural phenomena. Most humans grow dissatisfied
>>>> with that sort of hand-waving by the time they're six.
>>>>
>>>>> Stop rejecting your
>>>>> Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
>>>>> forms . Instead get to know him personally .
>>>>
>>>>> Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
>>>>> forms . Instead get to know him personally .
>>>>
>>>> Which one? Allah? Krishna? Zeus?
>>>
>>> The Invisible Pink Unicorn? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
>>
>> Oh mighty Arkleseizure,
>> Thou camest from high above.
>> Thou sneezed,
>> From out thy nostrils,
>> A gift of boundless love.
>> The Universe around us
>> Emergeth from thy Nose.
>>
>> Now we await,
>> With eager expectation,
>> Thy handkerchief,
>> To bring us back to Thee.
>
> Bless the Great Green Arkleseizure's holey handkerchief.
>>>
>>> The Invisible Pink Unicorn? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
>>
>> Oh mighty Arkleseizure,
>> Thou camest from high above.
>> Thou sneezed,
>> From out thy nostrils,
>> A gift of boundless love.
>> The Universe around us
>> Emergeth from thy Nose.
>>
>> Now we await,
>> With eager expectation,
>> Thy handkerchief,
>> To bring us back to Thee.
>
>
AAACHO!!!
Father Haskell
Dec 14, 2011, 10:48:39 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 8:55 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:
>
dead gods, for bringing inorganic C, N, O, and H into
the organic realm.
wrote:
>
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming
> from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
Like life, right? Thank green plants and the Sun, not
> from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
dead gods, for bringing inorganic C, N, O, and H into
the organic realm.
Yap
Dec 14, 2011, 10:58:11 PM12/14/11
to
creator?
Because we need to find out the ultimate source of power....the one
who created your creator........
Michael Gordge
Dec 14, 2011, 11:15:56 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 10:55 pm, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:
than others, aren't ewe Timm and Zinnnc and Eroll?
> where did the
> monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
That's encouraging, that ewe want to go all the way top the beginning,
so how far back did ewe go in your explanation of where your god came
from?
Dont worry, the answer is, you only had to go back as far as the
monkey man who invented it because he couldn't explain where life
began.
> he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
> nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
> person to think things through.
And because of that ewe fell for the man made mind dependent god hoax
hook line and sinker?
MG
wrote:
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
> even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey,
Man never came from a monkey, man is a monkey, and some more monkier
>
> even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey,
than others, aren't ewe Timm and Zinnnc and Eroll?
> where did the
> monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
so how far back did ewe go in your explanation of where your god came
from?
Dont worry, the answer is, you only had to go back as far as the
monkey man who invented it because he couldn't explain where life
began.
> he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
> nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
> person to think things through.
hook line and sinker?
MG
harry k
Dec 15, 2011, 12:09:49 AM12/15/11
to
to it and quite trying to conflate the two.
Hasrry K
Uergil
Dec 15, 2011, 12:21:46 AM12/15/11
to
In article
<9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Actually that figure was thought up by a couple of cosmologists about 60
years ago, so is hardly relevant to biology today. DNA was still a
mystery back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy#Hoyle.27s_statement
Hoyle's Fallacy derives from arguments most popular in the 1920s, prior
to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which are rejected by evolutionary
biologists.[3][5] A preliminary step is to establish that the phase
space containing some biological entity (e.g. humans, working cells, the
eye) is enormous ‹ something which is not contentious. Hoyle's Fallacy
is to infer from the huge size of the phase space that the probability
that evolution yielded the entity is exceedingly low.[3] Sometimes
arguments exhibiting Hoyle's Fallacy also invoke Borel's Law, which
claims incorrectly that highly improbable events do not occur.[1] (If
all possible outcomes of a natural process are highly improbable, then a
highly improbable outcome is certain.)
Hoyle's Fallacy is comparable to the older infinite monkey theorem.
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and
Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the
following errors.
1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern"
protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by
random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed
sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than
simultaneous trials.
4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5. They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes
present in a group of random sequences.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power
What in Niffleheim is a "Bilogist"?
> Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power
Actually that figure was thought up by a couple of cosmologists about 60
years ago, so is hardly relevant to biology today. DNA was still a
mystery back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy#Hoyle.27s_statement
Hoyle's Fallacy derives from arguments most popular in the 1920s, prior
to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which are rejected by evolutionary
biologists.[3][5] A preliminary step is to establish that the phase
space containing some biological entity (e.g. humans, working cells, the
eye) is enormous ‹ something which is not contentious. Hoyle's Fallacy
is to infer from the huge size of the phase space that the probability
that evolution yielded the entity is exceedingly low.[3] Sometimes
arguments exhibiting Hoyle's Fallacy also invoke Borel's Law, which
claims incorrectly that highly improbable events do not occur.[1] (If
all possible outcomes of a natural process are highly improbable, then a
highly improbable outcome is certain.)
Hoyle's Fallacy is comparable to the older infinite monkey theorem.
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and
Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the
following errors.
1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern"
protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by
random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed
sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than
simultaneous trials.
4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5. They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes
present in a group of random sequences.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Parrish *~
Dec 14, 2011, 7:01:38 PM12/14/11
to
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e5e8268-2ca9-4fdd...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>
> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
> >earth which are not alive.
>
> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> dishonesty, or both.
Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
::: And why would the intelligence have to be one or another of the 20,000
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>
> <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
> >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
> >earth which are not alive.
>
> No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
> started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> dishonesty, or both.
Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
known gods?
Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power . You dont have that much
faith , neither do i , or anyone else. Stop rejecting your
Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
forms . Instead get to know him personally .
proof of any of the gods yet?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
MarkA
Dec 15, 2011, 9:56:11 AM12/15/11
to
of infinite wisdom and glory must be even more improbable, by many, many
orders of magnitude. The main difference is that we have evidence that
life DID originate, at least once, while there is NO evidence that any
supernatural being has ever existed, outside the fertile imaginations of
those who don't like to feel alone when they go to bed.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Zinnic
Dec 15, 2011, 10:02:06 AM12/15/11
to
On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 10:55 pm, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
> wrote:
>
> > evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
> > even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey,
>
> Man never came from a monkey, man is a monkey, and some more monkier
> than others, aren't ewe Timm and Zinnnc and Eroll?
>
> >
>
> On Dec 14, 10:55 pm, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
> wrote:
>
> > evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
> > even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey,
>
> Man never came from a monkey, man is a monkey, and some more monkier
> than others, aren't ewe Timm and Zinnnc and Eroll?
>
> >
>
> And because of that ewe fell for the man made mind dependent god hoax
> hook line and sinker?
>
> MG
Whereas you fell for the woman made mindless Randian hoax hook line
> hook line and sinker?
>
> MG
and sinker? What's the difference? A is A, Scripture is Scripture
Zinnic
Pu...@pooks.hill.fey
Dec 18, 2011, 6:37:57 AM12/18/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>
>evolutionists defend a myth. they defend an anti-Christ religion which tells them there is no God
>to answer to.
Child, if someone gave you another brain, it would be lonely.
***
The spelling, like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
Puck Greenman #162
BAAWA Knight.
>
>evolutionists defend a myth. they defend an anti-Christ religion which tells them there is no God
>to answer to.
Child, if someone gave you another brain, it would be lonely.
***
The spelling, like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
Puck Greenman #162
BAAWA Knight.
Devils Advocaat
Dec 18, 2011, 8:46:53 AM12/18/11
to
On Dec 14, 5:59 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 9:51 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:55:53 -0500, Redeemed Clay
>
> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
>
> > <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:
> > >evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
>
> > No it doesn't. Evolution describes how life diversified after it
> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> > dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power . You dont have that much
> faith , neither do i , or anyone else. Stop rejecting your
> Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
> forms . Instead get to know him personally .
Which "Atheist world reknown Bilogists" are you referring to?
> > started; it has nothing to do with how life began. You've been
> > corrected on this basic point many times; that you continue to make
> > the same mistake indicates irredeemable stupidity, complete
> > dishonesty, or both.
>
> Well, how did life begin ? Talk about how life diversified
> accidentally , after you explain how life began accidentally . How
> did life begin without a shred of intelligence as the cause ?
> Atheist world reknown Bilogists tell us you have to have faith
> equivalent to 1 in 10^40,000 power . You dont have that much
> faith , neither do i , or anyone else. Stop rejecting your
> Creator .. the Creator of the entire Cosmos including all life
> forms . Instead get to know him personally .
Budikka666
Dec 18, 2011, 9:54:49 AM12/18/11
to
On Dec 14, 7:55 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
fact regardless of how life arose. Evoltuion is already an
established fact and abiogeneis has been established beyond ant
reasonable doiubt.
What has *not* in any way shape or form been estbalished is creation.
Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
exists
2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
the only deity there is
3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
created the universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
not a figment of your imagination\
I would be delighted to formally debate this with you using evidence
established by academically qualified scientists if you didn't keep
RUNNING like the coward for Christ you are every time I challenge you
or any Usenet creationist.
Here's a tiny fraction of the evidence for abiogenesis:
We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx
We know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
We know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
We also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
We know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
We know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
We know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
We know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
We know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
What's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Origin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
How could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
Same errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
The evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Feathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Different species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
robots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm
The so-called "Chain of Life" can be seen, alive today, in the major
vertebrate groups: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. These
groups are not as distinct as creationists love to lie that they are.
Take fish, to begin with. There are almost 28,000 species of them
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), about a third of which are
freshwater varieties. Creationists love to claim that 28,000 pairs of
fish didn't need to be on the ark because they can swim on a flooded
planet, but they carefully ignore the fact that freshwater fish do not
do well in saltwater and vice-versa.
Nor do deepwater fish do well in the shallows and vice-versa. Nor do
fish specifically adapted to the polar regions do well in the tropics
and vice-versa. Nor does any species of aquatic life thrive in mud
broth, which is what the ocean
would be in a global flood.
Somewhere along the way, no matter what your perspective, fish *had*
to evolve to explain these 28,000 or so species. And we can see
examples of what they were doing in the fossil record, but just as
importantly, we can see examples of what they are doing to evolve and
survive today amongst the living populations.
Take the killifish for example:
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=12015
This is a fish - but a fish that can live in insect burrows in
mangrove trees for extended periods when the local mangrove pools dry
up.
Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ATGAEnLzI
This is a fish that can walk as easily along the bottom as it can
swim. It effectively has legs, yet is still a fish.
Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
This lives in the littoral region - where the sea meets the shore and
is pretty much as at home out of the water as it is in it. Yet it's a
fish.
Everyone has heard of Lungfish:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
But has everyone heard of the walking catfish, and catfish that hunt
out of the water?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338989
Yes, they're still fish, but they're actually taking the first step or
two along the path to becoming amphibians, even without a huge
environmental incentive. What would fish such as these become given
sufficient time and natural selection?
The next step up from these fish is a true amphibian, and even amongst
those, there is some oddity. Consider the Axolotl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
It's an amphibian which effectively spends its entire life as a fish,
never leaving the water, but able to survive low water levels and
poorly oxygenated water. In rare circumstances it will mature into
what it actually is - a mole salamander. Axolotls are more advanced
than humans - in at least one regard. They can regenerate lost limbs,
which we cannot do naturally, not even in our wildest dreams, although
science doubtlessly will one day allow us to do this.
In the amphibian world, there's also an impressive variety. People
tend to think that amphibians are tied to water because that's where
they have to lay their eggs, but this isn't always true as we see at:
http://www.livingunderworld.org
http://tinyurl.com/3duox5
"Salamandra atra, usually only produce one or two offspring out of a
clutch of 20-30, which are delivered as fully morphed, miniature
adults. The remaining, unfertilized eggs provide nourishment to the
developing larvae when their yolk sacs have been exhausted. The larvae
of Salamandra atra obtain further nourishment by scraping the mothers
reproductive tract with specialized teeth, which provides them with
enough nourishment to last through the 2-4 year gestation period.
Similar behavior is also observed in some populations of Salamandra
salamandra, but with a slight twist; after all the unfertilized eggs
have been consumed, some developing larvae may cannibalize other
developing larvae within the mothers oviduct. All larval development
occurs within the mother, making these species true terrestrials."
In other words, this amphibian is already heading away from its
dependence upon water.
But what about those cannibalistic babies? Did a loving intelligent
designer create this mean and barbaric system, or did it actually
evolve? These are not the only cannibals. Consider the caecilians
described at www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist:
http://tinyurl.com/2799q6
This is the best a loving god can do?
Moving on to reptiles, what, exactly, is the tuatara?
http://tinyurl.com/233k6p
(at http://www.panda.org)
It's not an amphibian, but neither is it like any other reptile. You
might call it a living fossil. It's so strange that it has a whole
order all to itself, the rhynchocephalia.
Like fish and amphibians, reptiles are not at all uniform. Some lay
eggs, others, such as the venomous cottonmouth:
http://tinyurl.com/26697t
(at www.nationalzoo.si.edu)
develop young inside their bodies (but the young can also pop out of
eggs immediately after the eggs are laid). The cottonmouth is semi-
aquatic but is neither a fish nor an amphibian.
Snakes are a good example of the fact that there isn't one snake
"kind". Snakes can live pretty much anywhere provided the temperature
isn't too chill. There are jungle snakes, plains snakes, prairie
snakes, forest snakes, desert snakes and even sea-snakes:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes/true_sea.html
Any pair of snakes taken aboard the ark would have had to evolve -
evolve significantly and dramatically. There is no getting away from
evolution, even if you're a firm believer in a 6,000 year old Earth
and a global flood just 4,500 or so years ago.
Living representatives of a potential transitional form between
reptiles and mammals are the monotremes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme
They're mammals, but are commonly viewed as primitive even though
they're as evolved as any other living organism, including humans.
They lay eggs, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but unlike
other mammals; however, the eggs are retained in the body for a while
and "fed" by the mother. The platypus feeds its young with milk, like
other mammals, but even this is different: there is no teat. The milk
simply exudes onto the mother's skin where it can be licked up by the
young.
This was designed? Why? Why just three living monotremes? And where
do the marsupials fit into the grand design? Why are there so few of
these "odd" mammals and why are they so limited in range today?
The transitions, visible in organisms alive today as well as in the
fossil record, go well beyond this, through birds, mammals and
reptiles. In short, we don't need design to explain either the origin
or the evolution of life:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Now it's your turn. or you can run like you did last time I
challenged you, pathetic little vacuous coward that you are..
Budikka
wrote:
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
LIE. Abiogenesis depends on that, but evolution is a demonstrated
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
fact regardless of how life arose. Evoltuion is already an
established fact and abiogeneis has been established beyond ant
reasonable doiubt.
What has *not* in any way shape or form been estbalished is creation.
Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
exists
2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
the only deity there is
3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
created the universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
not a figment of your imagination\
I would be delighted to formally debate this with you using evidence
established by academically qualified scientists if you didn't keep
RUNNING like the coward for Christ you are every time I challenge you
or any Usenet creationist.
Here's a tiny fraction of the evidence for abiogenesis:
We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx
We know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
We know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
We also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
We know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
We know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
We know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
We know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
We know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
What's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Origin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
How could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
Same errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
The evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Feathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Different species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
robots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm
The so-called "Chain of Life" can be seen, alive today, in the major
vertebrate groups: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. These
groups are not as distinct as creationists love to lie that they are.
Take fish, to begin with. There are almost 28,000 species of them
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), about a third of which are
freshwater varieties. Creationists love to claim that 28,000 pairs of
fish didn't need to be on the ark because they can swim on a flooded
planet, but they carefully ignore the fact that freshwater fish do not
do well in saltwater and vice-versa.
Nor do deepwater fish do well in the shallows and vice-versa. Nor do
fish specifically adapted to the polar regions do well in the tropics
and vice-versa. Nor does any species of aquatic life thrive in mud
broth, which is what the ocean
would be in a global flood.
Somewhere along the way, no matter what your perspective, fish *had*
to evolve to explain these 28,000 or so species. And we can see
examples of what they were doing in the fossil record, but just as
importantly, we can see examples of what they are doing to evolve and
survive today amongst the living populations.
Take the killifish for example:
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=12015
This is a fish - but a fish that can live in insect burrows in
mangrove trees for extended periods when the local mangrove pools dry
up.
Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ATGAEnLzI
This is a fish that can walk as easily along the bottom as it can
swim. It effectively has legs, yet is still a fish.
Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
This lives in the littoral region - where the sea meets the shore and
is pretty much as at home out of the water as it is in it. Yet it's a
fish.
Everyone has heard of Lungfish:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
But has everyone heard of the walking catfish, and catfish that hunt
out of the water?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338989
Yes, they're still fish, but they're actually taking the first step or
two along the path to becoming amphibians, even without a huge
environmental incentive. What would fish such as these become given
sufficient time and natural selection?
The next step up from these fish is a true amphibian, and even amongst
those, there is some oddity. Consider the Axolotl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
It's an amphibian which effectively spends its entire life as a fish,
never leaving the water, but able to survive low water levels and
poorly oxygenated water. In rare circumstances it will mature into
what it actually is - a mole salamander. Axolotls are more advanced
than humans - in at least one regard. They can regenerate lost limbs,
which we cannot do naturally, not even in our wildest dreams, although
science doubtlessly will one day allow us to do this.
In the amphibian world, there's also an impressive variety. People
tend to think that amphibians are tied to water because that's where
they have to lay their eggs, but this isn't always true as we see at:
http://www.livingunderworld.org
http://tinyurl.com/3duox5
"Salamandra atra, usually only produce one or two offspring out of a
clutch of 20-30, which are delivered as fully morphed, miniature
adults. The remaining, unfertilized eggs provide nourishment to the
developing larvae when their yolk sacs have been exhausted. The larvae
of Salamandra atra obtain further nourishment by scraping the mothers
reproductive tract with specialized teeth, which provides them with
enough nourishment to last through the 2-4 year gestation period.
Similar behavior is also observed in some populations of Salamandra
salamandra, but with a slight twist; after all the unfertilized eggs
have been consumed, some developing larvae may cannibalize other
developing larvae within the mothers oviduct. All larval development
occurs within the mother, making these species true terrestrials."
In other words, this amphibian is already heading away from its
dependence upon water.
But what about those cannibalistic babies? Did a loving intelligent
designer create this mean and barbaric system, or did it actually
evolve? These are not the only cannibals. Consider the caecilians
described at www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist:
http://tinyurl.com/2799q6
This is the best a loving god can do?
Moving on to reptiles, what, exactly, is the tuatara?
http://tinyurl.com/233k6p
(at http://www.panda.org)
It's not an amphibian, but neither is it like any other reptile. You
might call it a living fossil. It's so strange that it has a whole
order all to itself, the rhynchocephalia.
Like fish and amphibians, reptiles are not at all uniform. Some lay
eggs, others, such as the venomous cottonmouth:
http://tinyurl.com/26697t
(at www.nationalzoo.si.edu)
develop young inside their bodies (but the young can also pop out of
eggs immediately after the eggs are laid). The cottonmouth is semi-
aquatic but is neither a fish nor an amphibian.
Snakes are a good example of the fact that there isn't one snake
"kind". Snakes can live pretty much anywhere provided the temperature
isn't too chill. There are jungle snakes, plains snakes, prairie
snakes, forest snakes, desert snakes and even sea-snakes:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes/true_sea.html
Any pair of snakes taken aboard the ark would have had to evolve -
evolve significantly and dramatically. There is no getting away from
evolution, even if you're a firm believer in a 6,000 year old Earth
and a global flood just 4,500 or so years ago.
Living representatives of a potential transitional form between
reptiles and mammals are the monotremes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme
They're mammals, but are commonly viewed as primitive even though
they're as evolved as any other living organism, including humans.
They lay eggs, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but unlike
other mammals; however, the eggs are retained in the body for a while
and "fed" by the mother. The platypus feeds its young with milk, like
other mammals, but even this is different: there is no teat. The milk
simply exudes onto the mother's skin where it can be licked up by the
young.
This was designed? Why? Why just three living monotremes? And where
do the marsupials fit into the grand design? Why are there so few of
these "odd" mammals and why are they so limited in range today?
The transitions, visible in organisms alive today as well as in the
fossil record, go well beyond this, through birds, mammals and
reptiles. In short, we don't need design to explain either the origin
or the evolution of life:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Now it's your turn. or you can run like you did last time I
challenged you, pathetic little vacuous coward that you are..
Budikka
0 new messages