Evolution is a RELIGION
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from because
surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even meet
the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary a
hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
support it as even an hypothesis.
So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time alone.
Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
time, no evolution, no you.
My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
that evolution is indeed a religion.
James Jinks
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
magnus.h...@id.sigma.se
In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
> to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
> existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
No, you may not. Even as an atheist I am free to belive that cats can give
birth to dogs.
> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
> et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from because
> surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
>
> Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
> science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even meet
> the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary a
> hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> support it as even an hypothesis.
>
> So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
> that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
> BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
You should probarbly look up the definition of religion in that Oxford concise
dictionary of yours.
> The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
> Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
> What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
> evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time alone.
> Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
> time, no evolution, no you.
You are not making any sense...
> My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
> that evolution is indeed a religion.
>
> James Jinks
/Magnus
Cabrutus
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
happens
> to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for
human
> existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
Why? And what kind of evolution? Your inference is incorrect. Even
without evolutionary theory, there is no reason to believe Creationism and
massive reason to reject it.
>
> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
Hinduism,
It's interesting that you would use religion pejoratively. However,
evolutionary theory has no life instruction doctrines, dogma, rituals,
religious leader(s), or meeting place(s). Which makes it very far from a
religion.
> et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from
because
> surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is
not.
Even if evolutionary theory were shown not science, it would not be shown
to be a religion.
>
> Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to
be a
> science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
Okay, that's evolution. Evolution has been observed. Evolution can be
demonstrated and repeated, the way it was observed.
> Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even
meet
> the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary
a
> hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
The presupposition is, we will see change in living and historical
organisms over time.
> Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> support it as even an hypothesis.
Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
again your breed's dishonesty.
>
> So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only
conclude
> that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
> BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
Wait a minute, are you calling a theory less weighty than a hypothesis? I
thought you said evolution wasn't a hypothesis, but now you're calling it a
theory. Now, you most certainly have not removed scientific probability of
evolutionary theory being true. It is extremely widely-accepted and very,
very well supported by all the facts.
In my experience, only desperate, backward, dishonest, and/or religious
agenda-driven people like you continue to hold to other explanations. You
might as well believe astrology over astronomy, alchemy over chemistry, and
a geocentric universe. You are, however, correct that most the world's
religions only have belief to support them.
>
> The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity
and
> Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
> What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
> evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
alone.
I do not define time as a god and I expect only fools would.
> Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be.
No
> time, no evolution, no you.
Yeah, um, if time didn't exist, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.
That's not too hard a leap to make. Or maybe it is to people like you who
slept through biology.
>
> My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to
tell you
> that evolution is indeed a religion.
You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so I can
show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly observed
fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change through
time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not only
provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
Creationism.
>
>
>
> James Jinks
>
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/
Budikka
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com cluelessly posts:
"Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
science."
How would a braindead dipshit like you have a clue what science is? You're a
moron. I guess your point has been answered since all scientists recognize
evolution as a science except for the cretinists, and they are not scientists.
"Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE."
Hey Moron, your funny-farm bus is leaving!
Evolution is all of the things you are shouting out above, and is integrated so
deeply with other sciences that in order to dismiss it you would also have to
dismiss:
Agronomy
Anatomy
Archaeology
Astronomy
Biology
Biochemistry
Embryology
Genetics
Geology
Medicine
Nuclear physics
and a few others. If you want to go after all the other sciences, then go post
in talk.origins and see what a reaming you get - we are a lot nicer in a.a. -
lucky for you.
"So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution"
What a pompous degenerate asshole you are. Obviously you are so totally
clueless that you have no idea whatsoever of what it is you are speaking.
You cretinists are all alike - not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
pea-brain, and not one of you understands science in any way whatsoever, least
of all what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
The _theory_ of evolution is an attempt by science to explain the observed,
predictable, and testable fact of evolution, just as cretinism is your
explanation for these same facts.
Do you even know what evolution is, you clueless chump? Evolution is simply a
change in the gene pool of a population. That's it, period, fini, end. That's
it, that is all there is! Deal with it.
The problem is that when you cretinist assholes talk of evolution, the only
thing you can think of is speciation. This is not evolution, but a by-product
of evolution, and has been observed.
Note these two examples of speciation from the talk.origins archive:
Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species
have evolved within
the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were
formed when one
diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a
tetraploid offspring. This
tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two
parent species types. It is
reproductively isolated, the definition of a species.
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus
sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants
were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were
formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown
from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile
with either parental species. Unfortunately the
new plant (genus aphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a
cabbage.
"Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?"
Try blind faith, a god, rituals, and a refusal to deal with reality. Evolution
has none of these things, so get real and wise up you idiotic putz. And learn
some grammar.
"Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
time, no evolution, no you"
And in your god-on-a-stick world, take away time and you have? precisely
nothing. If this is the best argument you can come up with you are even more
totally worthless than even I had estimated you to be the instant I saw you
moronically unoriginal headline.
You are no different from an atheist, except that you believe in one more god
than we do. Wise up you juvenile delinquent.
"My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
that evolution is indeed a religion."
You are wasting your time - do you think you have said even one original thing
in your idiotic posting?
You have absolutely zero point you puerile putz. There is no such thing as the
god of time. We do not worship a god, we do not pray to time. Why don't you
wake up and try to find your brain - it fell out while you were sleeping
through your life up to now.
Budikka - Xtianity: one god for every believer
Just-a-Bystander
On 6 Jul 1998 02:34:50 GMT, bud...@aol.com (Budikka) wrote:
>Jimi...@my-dejanews.com cluelessly posts:
>How would a braindead dipshit like you have a clue what science is? You're a
>moron. I guess your point has been answered since all scientists recognize
>evolution as a science except for the cretinists, and they are not scientists.
You obviously don't have a clue about science! Are you a scientist? I
doubt it. If I didn't know better...from your previous postings as
well as this one.....you are a kid probably in high school with no
intellectual reasoning...or vocabulary for that matter!
>
>Evolution is all of the things you are shouting out above, and is integrated so
>deeply with other sciences that in order to dismiss it you would also have to
>dismiss:
>
>Agronomy
>Anatomy
>Archaeology
>Astronomy
>Biology
>Biochemistry
>Embryology
>Genetics
>Geology
>Medicine
>Nuclear physics
Prove it! Scientifically!
>and a few others. If you want to go after all the other sciences, then go post
>in talk.origins and see what a reaming you get - we are a lot nicer in a.a. -
>lucky for you.
>
>
>What a pompous degenerate asshole you are. Obviously you are so totally
>clueless that you have no idea whatsoever of what it is you are speaking.
You haven't backed any statement up with supporting facts
>You cretinists are all alike - not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
>any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
>pea-brain, and not one of you understands science in any way whatsoever, least
>of all what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
You obviously have less imagination ...and what is the definition of
Theory, in a scientific context?
>Do you even know what evolution is, you clueless chump? Evolution is simply a
>change in the gene pool of a population. That's it, period, fini, end. That's
>it, that is all there is! Deal with it.
Please show evidence to back this definition of Evolution.
>The problem is that when you cretinist assholes talk of evolution, the only
>thing you can think of is speciation. This is not evolution, but a by-product
>of evolution, and has been observed.
Where? Did you observe it?
>Note these two examples of speciation from the talk.origins archive:
>
>Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species
>have evolved within
>the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were
>formed when one
>diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a
>tetraploid offspring. This
>tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two
>parent species types. It is
>reproductively isolated, the definition of a species.
>
>The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus
>sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants
>were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were
>formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown
>from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile
>with either parental species. Unfortunately the
>new plant (genus aphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a
>cabbage.
In light of you giving these two examples I am going to use one of
your quotes:"not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
pea-brain"
>"Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?"
>Try blind faith, a god, rituals, and a refusal to deal with reality. Evolution
>has none of these things, so get real and wise up you idiotic putz. And learn
>some grammar.
You are showing BELIEF in your statement..Does that make it a
Religion? Did your belief come from someone else's teachings? or is it
originally yours by no influence of anyone else?
>"Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
>time, no evolution, no you"
>And in your god-on-a-stick world, take away time and you have? precisely
>nothing. If this is the best argument you can come up with you are even more
>totally worthless than even I had estimated you to be the instant I saw you
>moronically unoriginal headline.
>You are no different from an atheist, except that you believe in one more god
>than we do. Wise up you juvenile delinquent.
>
>"My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
>that evolution is indeed a religion."
>
>You are wasting your time - do you think you have said even one original thing
>in your idiotic posting?
You didn't either! This looks like some of your other postings..
>You have absolutely zero point you puerile putz. There is no such thing as the
>god of time. We do not worship a god, we do not pray to time. Why don't you
>wake up and try to find your brain - it fell out while you were sleeping
>through your life up to now.
Your posting has even a lesser point!
Just-a-Bystander
On 6 Jul 1998 02:22:06 GMT, "Cabrutus"
<loc...@geocities.ddddddddddd.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
><6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
>happens
>> to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for
>human
>> existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>
>Why? And what kind of evolution? Your inference is incorrect. Even
>without evolutionary theory, there is no reason to believe Creationism and
>massive reason to reject it.
>
>>
>> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
>Hinduism,
>
>It's interesting that you would use religion pejoratively. However,
>evolutionary theory has no life instruction doctrines, dogma, rituals,
>religious leader(s), or meeting place(s). Which makes it very far from a
>religion.
I think he is using religion as meaning: 'putting you hope into
something as to explain our existence'. Taking this definition then he
could be right.
>> et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from
>because
>> surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is
>not.
>
>Even if evolutionary theory were shown not science, it would not be shown
>to be a religion.
>
>>
>> Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to
>be a
>> science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
>
>Okay, that's evolution. Evolution has been observed. Evolution can be
>demonstrated and repeated, the way it was observed.
>> Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even
>meet
>> the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary
>a
>> hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
>
>The presupposition is, we will see change in living and historical
>organisms over time.
Can you be absolutely sure?
>> Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
>> definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
>> support it as even an hypothesis.
>
>Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
>physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
>and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
>there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
>of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
>theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
>again your breed's dishonesty.
>
>>
>> So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only
>conclude
>> that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
>> BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
>
>Wait a minute, are you calling a theory less weighty than a hypothesis? I
>thought you said evolution wasn't a hypothesis, but now you're calling it a
>theory. Now, you most certainly have not removed scientific probability of
>evolutionary theory being true. It is extremely widely-accepted and very,
>very well supported by all the facts.
>
>In my experience, only desperate, backward, dishonest, and/or religious
>agenda-driven people like you continue to hold to other explanations. You
>might as well believe astrology over astronomy, alchemy over chemistry, and
>a geocentric universe. You are, however, correct that most the world's
>religions only have belief to support them.
>
>>
>> The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity
>and
>> Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>>
>> What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
>> evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
>alone.
>
>I do not define time as a god and I expect only fools would.
>
>> Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be.
>No
>> time, no evolution, no you.
>
>Yeah, um, if time didn't exist, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.
>That's not too hard a leap to make. Or maybe it is to people like you who
>slept through biology.
>
>>
>> My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to
>tell you
>> that evolution is indeed a religion.
>
>You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so I can
>show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly observed
>fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change through
>time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not only
>provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
>Creationism.
Evolution assumes that something was in existance for it to change.
Where did 'that something' come from? Evolution can't explain this.
Creationism tries to explain this....
Explain this:
How does nature know when to change? Does it have a brain?
If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
Did nature 'choose' for them to change? How can nature choose?
Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
If you can't answer these scientifically then how can you fully know
all the facts about evolution? If you can't know all the facts about
evolution and there is 'guessing' then isn't it a theory and not law?
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
>
> In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
> >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
> >evolutionists.
> No, you may not. Even as an atheist I am free to belive that cats can give
> birth to dogs.
Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
> > Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
> >Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from
> >because surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but
> >it is not.
> > Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
> > science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
the hell can you dispute that? Save yourself a lame rebuttal by at least
calling it "the THEORY of evolution" I do not claim evolution is NOT true,
just that's it's not true SCIENCE. Big difference.
> > Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover, evolution doesn't even
> >meet the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise
> >dictionary a hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known
> >facts.
> > Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> > definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> > support it as even an hypothesis.
> > So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
> > that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
> > BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
> You should probably look up the definition of religion in that Oxford concise
> dictionary of yours.
Well I did look it up to humour you. According to Oxford concise dictionary
1995 edition, the fifth definition for religion is: " a thing that one is
devoted to". Atheism inherently has to have devotion to the theory of
evolution, otherwise atheists would have no choice but to BE theist. I
suggest to you that you BUY a dictionary so that you may learn the terms from
whence your limited understanding of the english language came. Calling
evolution a religion (in the typical sense) was using a little poetic
licence. I should have phrased it more aptly for YOU in LAYMAN'S terms. I
thought that most readers could ascertain that, but apparently
you..........(ahh screw it....flame thrower not needed)
> > The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
> > Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
> > What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
> > evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
alone.
> > Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
> > time, no evolution, no you.
>
> You are not making any sense...
>
Sense is something which not all people can grasp. I myself would never
find that Einstein's theory of relativity would make all that much SENSE to
me, however, that does not mean that there is no sense to his equation. Just
as my supposition does not make sense to you, does not mean that there is no
intrinsic sense to it. For YOUR benefit I will rephrase it. You simply
cannot comprehend it. Plain enough for you?
Reply if you wish. I think I might like waging a war of words with you
through this thread. I dont even need my flame thrower to burn you to a
crisp. roflmao :P
James Jinks
"If a man will begin with uncertainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he
will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties"
"They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see
nothing but sea"
"Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor
to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider"
Francis Bacon 1561-1626
"Quid quid agas, prudenter agas, et respice finem"
Aristotle 384-322 bc
Jake
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 05:26:49 GMT, Just-a-Bystander wrote:
>Evolution assumes that something was in existance for it to change.
>Where did 'that something' come from? Evolution can't explain this.
>Creationism tries to explain this....
>
Evolution is the process of mutation on an organism. It says that for
an organism to grow and survive it must find the best ways for it to
survive. Animals that are born with different attributes then its
fellow of the same species and that survive better then the rest will
go on to breed more often then those who fall behind. As for where
that life came from, I'll leave that for someone with a better
understanding of micro bioptic to explain.
>Explain this:
>How does nature know when to change? Does it have a brain?
>If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
>Did nature 'choose' for them to change? How can nature choose?
>Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
This is the nature of evolution. Those born with a new attribute that
allows them to lets say, hunt better, will pass those genes on to its
progeny. Those that don't, either die off or remain at a certain
level.
Nature doesn't make choices, it allows for failure to die and for
success to move forward.
Also, we are not the only animals who can reason. We are learning
lately that our definition of *reason* has to be expanded. Dolphins
and whales reason, apes and other primates reason, there are many
more. There are parrots who can not only reason, but tell you how they
are reasoning. Humans just happened to get a small jump on the rest of
the animals when it came to this not so unique feature.
Jake
atheist #678
Otherwise known as lilbudha1
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
" It's always darkest before the lights come on. "
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6npcce$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Cabrutus" <loc...@geocities.ddddddddddd.com> wrote:
> You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so I can
> show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly observed
> fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change through
> time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not only
> provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
> Creationism.
Liar?
Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in different
stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species. ALL the
worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet been found.
I repeat; name one!
To correct you sir, the hypohtesis/theory (call it what you wish) that
explains away these gaps in the fossil record is called "punctuated
equalibrium" and was offered as an explanation for said gaps in the fossil
record.
According to: Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge two influential
evolutionists
This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in
the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because
these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable
species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable
species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long
periods of _equilibrium_ (no evolutionary change) during which time many
offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced -- _punctuated_ by
relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record.
Perhaps you should take less of what you are told for granted, and spend some
time in a university studying this subject like I do. Then perhaps you'll find
you will evolve at a faster rate with your head out of your ass! :oP
> Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
> loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/
>
>
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
bud...@aol.com (Budikka) wrote:
>
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> "Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
> science."
> How would a braindead dipshit like you have a clue what science is? You're a
> moron. I guess your point has been answered since all scientists recognize
> evolution as a science except for the cretinists, and they are not scientists.
> >"Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE."
> Hey Moron, your funny-farm bus is leaving!
Moron? You haven't been able to offer anything original from your own head
to dispute what I said above. If all you can do is resort to name calling,
then it is you not I who have the inferior intellect. I am here to debate the
subject since it hinges upon atheism. Not to get in to a juvenile, silly
little flame war with you.
Can't you even offer a rebuttal to my supposition? All I see here in this
reply post of yours is the inability of your cranium to hold back such
unwarranted intellectual diarrhea. Name calling is for those people who can't
construct an actual argument in rebuttal.
> What a pompous degenerate asshole you are. Obviously you are so totally
> clueless that you have no idea whatsoever of what it is you are speaking.
Actually it was through attaining (to date) my masters degree on this
subject that made me have my doubts about evolution. Did you ever make it out
of grammar school?
Where does pompous come from? I never stated to have this information through
divine intervention, nor do I make any judgmental claims. Perhaps you should
look up the word "pompous".
"Swearing is the way a WEAK MIND speaks forcefully" Samuel Clemmens
And in your case ol' Mark Twain was right!
> The _theory_ of evolution is an attempt by science to explain the observed,
> predictable, and testable fact of evolution, just as cretinism is your
> explanation for these same facts.
Well First of all it has never been observed, nor is it testable. And as
for predictability, who can possible say what role mother nature may or not
take in our further development. Can you say where the human race will be in
a million years? No I didn't think so, so you know where you can stuff your
"predictability"
You exhibit the brains of a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
> The problem is that when you cretinist assholes talk of evolution, the only
> thing you can think of is speciation. This is not evolution, but a by-product
> of evolution, and has been observed.
Actually, the dictionary definition of "speciation" is the appearance of new
species THROUGH the course of evolution. Obviously you do not know to what
you refer. They go hand in hand. I would love to resort to the flaming like
you have done to me, but, being the better man you are below my contempt.
> The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus
> sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants
> were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were
> formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown
> from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile
> with either parental species. Unfortunately the
> new plant (genus aphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a
> cabbage.
>
What is your point? That plants can be cross bread? I fully agree with you
there. Nothing new there at all. In fact mankind has been doing it for
thousands of years. This is old news pal, wake up and smell the coffee!
If you want to debate the issue then lets get down too it. If you wish to
sling insults, then email me your phone number and we act childish to our
hearts content. Why don't you save your hate for the xians or the jews and
leave the idiotic rhetoric out of an actual debate.
I never told you to believe in God did I? I never even suggested it. I did
however suggest that evolution takes belief to make it tasteful because as a
science it still falls short of the needed prerequisites.So save your anger
for a bible thumping theist!
Oh, and by the way, for your infomation, there are no such words as:
braindead, funny-farm, dipshit, clueless, or interfertile. Each one of your
"invented" words is actually TWO WORDS, you clue less brain dead dip shit!
Now who's the moron now! You are no longer beneath my comtempt. Sadly i
digress.
James Jinks
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
> >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
> >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
> >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
> >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
> >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
> >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
> >again your breed's dishonesty.
Thanks, you just used the KEY word for me (2nd sentence 16th word)
THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to as
the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my point.
:o)
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35a168ae...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >Where did 'that something' come from? Evolution can't explain this.
> >Creationism tries to explain this....
> >
> an organism to grow and survive it must find the best ways for it to
> survive. Animals that are born with different attributes then its
> fellow of the same species and that survive better then the rest will
> go on to breed more often then those who fall behind. As for where
> that life came from, I'll leave that for someone with a better
> understanding of micro bioptic to explain.
>
> >How does nature know when to change? Does it have a brain?
> >If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
> >Did nature 'choose' for them to change? How can nature choose?
> >Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
>
> allows them to lets say, hunt better, will pass those genes on to its
> progeny. Those that don't, either die off or remain at a certain
> level.
> Nature doesn't make choices, it allows for failure to die and for
> success to move forward.
> Also, we are not the only animals who can reason. We are learning
> lately that our definition of *reason* has to be expanded. Dolphins
> and whales reason, apes and other primates reason, there are many
> more. There are parrots who can not only reason, but tell you how they
> are reasoning. Humans just happened to get a small jump on the rest of
> the animals when it came to this not so unique feature.
>
As the originator of this thread I can see that at least you two people have
the common sense to see this as a debate for what it is and not an invitation
for a petty flame war. You have my fullest admiration where others have
failed.
James Jinx
Don Kresch
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:30:04 GMT, in alt.atheism, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
scrawled in blood:
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
>to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
>existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
No, you may not. While I do agree that evolution is a fact, not all
atheists will agree.
Since your argument rests on that....hey fuck you it's trash.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51
"Cartman, what the *hell* are you talking about?"
Carl Funk
Just-a-Bystander wrote:
>
> On 6 Jul 1998 02:34:50 GMT, bud...@aol.com (Budikka) wrote:
>
> >Jimi...@my-dejanews.com cluelessly posts:
>
> >How would a braindead dipshit like you have a clue what science is?
> >You're a moron. I guess your point has been answered since all
> >scientists recognize evolution as a science except for the cretinists, > >and they are not scientists.
> You obviously don't have a clue about science! Are you a scientist? I
> doubt it. If I didn't know better...from your previous postings as
> well as this one.....you are a kid probably in high school with no
> intellectual reasoning...or vocabulary for that matter!
>
to care only about what scientists think, you might want to
check out this site:
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
This is a copy of the recent guidebook issued by the National
Academy of Sciences, _Teaching About Evolution and the Nature
of Science_. It was written by scientists, it explains what
science is, and why the Theory of Evolution *is* science.
<snip>
> >You cretinists are all alike - not one of you has a clue, not
> >one of you has any imagination at all, not one of you has an
> >original thought in your pea-brain, and not one of you understands
> >science in any way whatsoever, least of all what the word "theory"
> >means in a scientific context.
> You obviously have less imagination ...and what is the definition of
> Theory, in a scientific context?
>
From the above source:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts,
laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
> >Do you even know what evolution is, you clueless chump?
> >Evolution is simply a change in the gene pool of a population.
> >That's it, period, fini, end. That's it, that is all there
> >is! Deal with it.
> Please show evidence to back this definition of Evolution.
>
Another quote from the above source:
Biological evolution concerns changes in living things
during the history of life on earth. It explains that
living things share common ancestors. Over time,
evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin
called this process "descent with modification," and it
remains a good definition of biological evolution today.
<snip the rest>
--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum"
to bypass my SPAM-deflector, it helps if you realize I am
asthmatic. i.e. no SMOKING please!
maff91
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:30:04 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
Troll along to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
*****************************************************
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:30:04 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
>to be.
In the presence of a creator, the creator just happens to be. Do you
have a point or are you just babbling?
>It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
>existence.
No it is not.
>So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
No you cannot.
> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
>et al. etc. etc.
First let me get this straight. Your implication is that atheists are
fools because they believe in evolution, and because evolution is not
science but religion. However, by this, you have also implied that
everybody else who is religious is a fool as well. Good going
Einstein.
>Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from because
>surely evolution is science.
Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
You cannot win against science because science is not fighting you.
Learn from the past embarrassments and stop attacking the windmills.
>Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
Too bad because it is not upto morons like you to say what is science
and what is not.
[...]
> The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
>Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
> What? We have a God you atheists ask?
No we don't. All we ask is why evolution failed so miserably in your
case.
>Yes you do.
(Psst. Don't talk to yourself.. People might get ideas.)
>Your god is what all
>evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time alone.
>Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
>time, no evolution, no you.
Oh my! You are a genius! Let's take away time and see what happens to
YOUR world! ROTFL.
> My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
>that evolution is indeed a religion.
You have no point, troll.
--
To reply, remove 1st xyz, replace 2nd w/ com.
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 05:26:49 GMT, Just-a-Bystander wrote:
[...]
>How does nature know when to change? Does it have a brain?
How does nature know how to make a snowflake? Does it have a brain?
Did it take art lessons?
>If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
Let's not say that. Saying that makes one look foolish.
>Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
Apparently not all of us can. Disheartening yet, some other animals
do.
>If you can't answer these scientifically then how can you fully know
>all the facts about evolution? If you can't know all the facts about
>evolution and there is 'guessing' then isn't it a theory and not law?
It IS a theory, Einstein. Better go read some about science before
going further and asking stupid things like "why is evolution STILL a
theory and not a law?"
maff91
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:33:58 GMT, Just-a-Bystander wrote:
>On 6 Jul 1998 02:34:50 GMT, bud...@aol.com (Budikka) wrote:
>
>>Jimi...@my-dejanews.com cluelessly posts:
>
>>How would a braindead dipshit like you have a clue what science is? You're a
>>moron. I guess your point has been answered since all scientists recognize
>>evolution as a science except for the cretinists, and they are not scientists.
>You obviously don't have a clue about science! Are you a scientist? I
>doubt it. If I didn't know better...from your previous postings as
>well as this one.....you are a kid probably in high school with no
>intellectual reasoning...or vocabulary for that matter!
The Scientists (of all faith) from all over the world have exposed
lies of the creationist "Scientists".
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=creationism&Where=FAQs
All major Christian denominations have accepted the Scientific
validity of the theory of Evolution. What Fundie Fanatic sect do you
belong to?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>
>>
>>Evolution is all of the things you are shouting out above, and is integrated so
>>deeply with other sciences that in order to dismiss it you would also have to
>>dismiss:
>>
>>Agronomy
>>Anatomy
>>Archaeology
>>Astronomy
>>Biology
>>Biochemistry
>>Embryology
>>Genetics
>>Geology
>>Medicine
>>Nuclear physics
>Prove it! Scientifically!
Try reading Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop and Darwin's Dangerous
Idea by Daniel C. Dennett first.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671872346/002-8459141-2510617
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068482471X/002-8459141-2510617
>
>>and a few others. If you want to go after all the other sciences, then go post
>>in talk.origins and see what a reaming you get - we are a lot nicer in a.a. -
>>lucky for you.
>>
>>
>>What a pompous degenerate asshole you are. Obviously you are so totally
>>clueless that you have no idea whatsoever of what it is you are speaking.
>You haven't backed any statement up with supporting facts
>
>>You cretinists are all alike - not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
>>any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
>>pea-brain, and not one of you understands science in any way whatsoever, least
>>of all what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
>You obviously have less imagination ...and what is the definition of
>Theory, in a scientific context?
Theory is one which corresponds to observed reality of nature.
>
>>Do you even know what evolution is, you clueless chump? Evolution is simply a
>>change in the gene pool of a population. That's it, period, fini, end. That's
>>it, that is all there is! Deal with it.
>Please show evidence to back this definition of Evolution.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>
>>The problem is that when you cretinist assholes talk of evolution, the only
>>thing you can think of is speciation. This is not evolution, but a by-product
>>of evolution, and has been observed.
>Where? Did you observe it?
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
>>Note these two examples of speciation from the talk.origins archive:
>>
>>Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species
>>have evolved within
>>the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were
>>formed when one
>>diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a
>>tetraploid offspring. This
>>tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two
>>parent species types. It is
>>reproductively isolated, the definition of a species.
>>
>>The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus
>>sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants
>>were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were
>>formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown
>>from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile
>>with either parental species. Unfortunately the
>>new plant (genus aphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a
>>cabbage.
>
>In light of you giving these two examples I am going to use one of
>your quotes:"not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
>any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
>pea-brain"
Is that why World's Scientist's and most major Christian denominations
have accepted it? If you can prove that your assertions are more than
that then they'll be interested in hearing about it. Are you one of
the world's leading Biologist? What Fundie Fanatic sect do you belong
anyway?
>
>
>>"Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?"
>
>>Try blind faith, a god, rituals, and a refusal to deal with reality. Evolution
>>has none of these things, so get real and wise up you idiotic putz. And learn
>>some grammar.
>You are showing BELIEF in your statement..Does that make it a
>Religion? Did your belief come from someone else's teachings? or is it
>originally yours by no influence of anyone else?
It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with observed evidence
and a theory which corresponds to it.
>
>>"Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
>>time, no evolution, no you"
>
>>And in your god-on-a-stick world, take away time and you have? precisely
>>nothing. If this is the best argument you can come up with you are even more
>>totally worthless than even I had estimated you to be the instant I saw you
>>moronically unoriginal headline.
>
>>You are no different from an atheist, except that you believe in one more god
>>than we do. Wise up you juvenile delinquent.
>>
>>"My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is to tell you
>>that evolution is indeed a religion."
>>
>>You are wasting your time - do you think you have said even one original thing
>>in your idiotic posting?
>You didn't either! This looks like some of your other postings..
Creationist lies have been exposed as lies again and again. What
Fundie Fanatic sect you belong anyway? The Church of bearing False
Witness?
>
>>You have absolutely zero point you puerile putz. There is no such thing as the
>>god of time. We do not worship a god, we do not pray to time. Why don't you
>>wake up and try to find your brain - it fell out while you were sleeping
>>through your life up to now.
>Your posting has even a lesser point!
First make war on all the Christians who don't buy your story. After
you kill them all, you can come back to a.a.!
>
>>Budikka - Xtianity: one god for every believer
*****************************************************
Greg Gyetko
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [snip]
OK, look, here's a little instruction book for you.
1. Put both hands on your penis.
2. Move your hands up and down
3. Direct any liquid issued AWAY from your keyboard.
Thank you.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
so why bother?"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
Sterling Crowe
Just-a-Bystander wrote in message <35a05cb3...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 6 Jul 1998 02:22:06 GMT, "Cabrutus"
><loc...@geocities.ddddddddddd.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
>>Hinduism,
>>
>>It's interesting that you would use religion pejoratively. However,
>>evolutionary theory has no life instruction doctrines, dogma, rituals,
>>religious leader(s), or meeting place(s). Which makes it very far from a
>>religion.
>I think he is using religion as meaning: 'putting you hope into
>something as to explain our existence'. Taking this definition then he
>could be right.
Who, exactly, puts "hope" into evolution as a way to "explain our
existence"?
I, simply, think it is the current best description for the mechanisms which
produced homo sapiens.
If a better one comes along, "better" defined in this case as "more
supported by evidence", I'll change my mind.
<snip>
>>> Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even
>>meet
>>> the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise
dictionary
>>a
>>> hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
>>
>>The presupposition is, we will see change in living and historical
>>organisms over time.
>Can you be absolutely sure?
Actually, the presupposition is that allele frequencies will change within a
population over time.
That is absolutely certain, as far as I am concerned: I've seen it.
As far as evolutionary models go, the trick is figuring out how the allele
changes occured in the past and predicting what sort of evidence you will
find later on.
One of the predictions made, for instance, is that you WILL NOT find human
fossils in the same fossil layer as dinosaurs.
<snip>
>>You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so I
can
>>show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly observed
>>fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change through
>>time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not only
>>provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
>>Creationism.
>Evolution assumes that something was in existance for it to change.
Correct!
>Where did 'that something' come from?
Pittsburgh! No, wait! Abu Dhabi!
Not evolution's problem. Talk to someone working in the field of abiogenesis
for current theories about that.
>Evolution can't explain this.
Very good! You get a gold star for being one of the few creationists around
here who actually understands that.
Of course, you still think that that is a bad thing.
>Creationism tries to explain this....
No it doesn't it. It says "Goddidit" and lets it go at that. Not an
explanation and certainly isn't something which has evidence to back it up.
>Explain this:
What? Your anthropomorphic portrayal of nature?
Well, it's quite simple. You've attributed human traits to something which
is not human. It's a literary device.
Unfortunately, you seem to think that people should take your metaphors
literally.
>How does nature know when to change?
It doesn't "know" anything. "Nature" is simply a catch all word which
includes everything in the universe.
"It" really isn't even an "it".
> Does it have a brain?
"Nature" contains many brains. From your next question, I must infer that
you contain none.
>If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
For one thing, humans are still apes. No big deal.
For another, you are asking a question which was last taken seriously back
during the Scopes trial.
Here's the short answer and I hope that the words aren't too hairy for you:
Apes and humans share common ancestry.
Do you get it?
Look at your family tree. I'll use a hypothetical one, but if you have
siblings or cousins, you can use your own.
Joe Blow and Sally Blow have two kids: Billy and Bobby.
Billy and Bobby each go off and get married.
They each have a kid.
Now Billy married a girl with bright red hair and fair skin, Bobby married a
girl with swarthy skin and black hair. Their children each took after their
mother in this respect, so the cousins don't look a whole lot like each
other.
But, they share common descent and no one had to cease to be.
Do you get it now?
>Did nature 'choose' for them to change?
Nope. Nature 'selected' for them to change.
> How can nature choose?
Well, natural selection works essentially by killing off anything 'nature'
doesn't 'like'.
In this respect, nature is very much like your mythological being.
>Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
Puttin' on airs, are you?
First: I am capable of 'reason' if, by 'reason' you mean 'logical thought'
or even 'even temper'. You seem to provide evidence of the second, but not a
trace of evidence appears in your post for the first.
Second: We aren't. Chimps are quite capable of logical thought. Or, at the
very least, behavior which shows a logical thought process. Ditto dolphins.
Mexican Grey parrots are capable of abstract, symbol based, language.
Several different species use tools of one sort or another.
Hmmm... What's left?
>If you can't answer these scientifically then how can you fully know
>all the facts about evolution?
Considering that none of your questions, with the possible exception of "how
does nature choose", were scientific, I doubt that there will be any real
obstacle posed by them.
> If you can't know all the facts about
>evolution and there is 'guessing' then isn't it a theory and not law?
Who is calling it a law, for one?
For another, even if it is being called a law by now (and, since there is no
formalized method for turning a theory into a law, it may well be), there is
no problem with that, anyway, since a law is simply a theory which has stood
the test of massive amounts of experimentation and a long period of time.
And, who ever told you that every single detail of something had to be known
for a theory to become a law? Newton's laws lasted a couple hundred years
and we still don't know what gravity actually IS.
--Sterling Crowe
#1168
"Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
-Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960
Having warned you of all that, I feel like a tremendous weight
has been lifted off my chest, off my "evil pillows," if you will.
-Anne` Ferguson
Jason Wood
> Evolution assumes that something was in existance for it to change.
> Where did 'that something' come from? Evolution can't explain this.
> Creationism tries to explain this....
>
>
Evolution isn't ment to explain where we came from, just how we
got here...
> Explain this:
> How does nature know when to change? Does it have a brain?
> If we evolved from lets say apes then why are there still apes?
> Did nature 'choose' for them to change? How can nature choose?
> Why are we the only animals that can 'Reason'?
>
>
Nature doesn't change organisms directly!! Nature isn't a 'god'.
An organism changes to adapt to change. If a region where
an organism is get hotter in temperature, it 'changes' (not really,
but I'm trying to simplify this...) to adapt to the change
in the enviroment.
Or geez.....get this straight and I don't know how or why
people think this (Xtian lies..) WE DID NOT EVOLVE
FROM APES!!! Apes, Chimps, Monkeys, and Humans
came from a COMMON ANCESTRY. (sp?) Meaning
that we all evolved from the same animal. We we trace back
the animals that we evolved from, and those that an ape,
a monkey, a chimp evolved from, we eventually hit
a crossroads, an animal where we all came from. (ie
It wasn't an ape!!). If you want to get technical.
We evolved from Homo Erectus. (sp?), which could
visual pass from Homo Sapian.
Jay
Jason Wood
> Evolution is the process of mutation on an organism. It says that for
> an organism to grow and survive it must find the best ways for it to
> survive. Animals that are born with different attributes then its
> fellow of the same species and that survive better then the rest will
> go on to breed more often then those who fall behind. As for where
> that life came from, I'll leave that for someone with a better
> understanding of micro bioptic to explain.
>
Not exactly true. Mutation is really only a small part
of evolution. Main part of evolution is adaptation,
"Only the strong survive", those kinds of things.
Mutation places a small part of evolution/
David Johnston
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
> existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>
> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
> surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
>
> Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
Observable: We have observed the fossil record and generational changes
in the modern era. We have also observed mutation and DNA exchange
courtesy of viruses.
Demonstrable: We have radically altered species using nothing but
selective breeding. We have induced mutation and used recombinant
genetic engineering. We have displayed the fossils to the public.
Repeatable. We've done it more than once.
Of course you realise that your criteria are crap anyway. Quarks were
scientific long before they matched any of your "criteria" for science.
Heck, you just abandoned all of astronomy, because none of it is
"demonstrable" in the sense you offer.
> Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover evolution doesn't even meet
> the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary a
> hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
> Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> support it as even an hypothesis.
Liar. Since I assume you are not stupid, surely you realise that
that nowhere in that definition are your "criteria" called for.
Known facts about life include it's existence in many varieties which
seem related to varying degrees, the fossil record of new species
appearing over time, the basis of DNA in heredity, and a wide variety of
odd facts which are inconsistent with design by a creator who was either
omnipotent or benevolent, but are perfectly consistent with blind trial
and error.
Jake
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 13:50:52 -0400, Jason Wood <jayw...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Not exactly true. Mutation is really only a small part
>of evolution. Main part of evolution is adaptation,
>"Only the strong survive", those kinds of things.
>Mutation places a small part of evolution/
I was TRYING to keep it simple !!!
LOL
Thanks though.
Jake
atheist #678
Otherwise known as lilbudha1
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
4 noble truths...
1. Life sucks
2. Life sucks because you want things.
3. Life will stop sucking when you stop wanting things.
4. Be a good person.
The atheist version...
1. Church sucks.
2. Church sucks because they want your things.
3. Church will stop sucking when you stop going.
4. Learn to think for yourself.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Zack Lawrence
>
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
> > to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
> > existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
> >
> > Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
> > et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from because
> > surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
> >
> > Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
> > science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
> > the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary a
> > hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
> > Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> > definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> > support it as even an hypothesis.
So even if evolution doesn't meet these "criteria", why does that make
it a religion. Why doesn't it make it a theory, or a view point or a
form of government for that matter. I don't see your conection between
it not being an exact science so it being a religion. Please clarify
your cause and effect here. By reading your post, I guess religion can't
be considered any form of science either. Since it does not meet any
"criteria". It doesn't even meet the definition of a hypothesis, since
there are no real facts to back it up.
Jake
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 22:00:54 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>As the originator of this thread I can see that at least you two people have
>the common sense to see this as a debate for what it is and not an invitation
>for a petty flame war. You have my fullest admiration where others have
>failed.
Ummm....is that a good thing ?
LOL
Jake
atheist #678
Otherwise known as lilbudha1
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
" Better than a thousand meaningless words is one sensible word
if hearing it one becomes peaceful. ".......from the Dhammapada,
the sayings of the Buddha.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
Jason Wood
> Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in different
> stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species. ALL the
> worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet been found.
> I repeat; name one!
I can't name any off the top of my head, but I took Biology 1100 (the first
Bio offered), and in the lab, I _SAW_ fossils that shown charateristics
of two (even three) different types. Such as one skull that showed charateristics
of a reptile and amphibian, a reptile and bird, a reptile and mammle. Thse
transition species shiow what you say doesn't exist. They show what you
say every scientist say doesn't exists. Exactly, where did you 'find' that
no scientist says they were found. I've seen them...and you say they don't exist?
Jay
Jason Wood
> Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
> those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
> other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
> seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
> birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
>
Evolution, haven't you been paying attention?
and if cats gave birth to dogs, that would not be evolution, that'd
be a freak of nature.
> Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
> NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
> Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
>
God damn it!! Haven't you been paying attention. Have you read
the responces people have given you? There must have been at
LEAST 10 people who have proven you WORNG that evolution IS
observable, IS demostratable, and IS repeatable. Open your dame
eyes, and your mind for that matter.
Jay
bob
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
happens
>to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for
human
>existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
Taking your first sentence refering to "....a creator", you seem to be
saying in the second sentence that evolution replaces a creator, at least as
far as atheists are concerned, based on your third sentence. So you are
claiming that evolution tries to explain the beginnings of life. You are
totally wrong. Evolution explains change, and in order for there to be
change, there has to be something to change FROM. Catching the drift? IOW,
evolution does not and has never tried to explain how life began, let alone
how the universe started. If indeed, it had a start.
So....
Since your rant depends on a fallacy from the start, I'll just snip the rest
of this. It's just so much dog shit, you know.
Rev. bob
AA#8
AAM#8
EAC#88
"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
Douglas & Jennie Jackson
In our last episode of *[alt.atheism]*, <Jimi...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:
> Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe
> just happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only
> alternative for human existence. So I may correctly infer that
> atheists are evolutionists.
Well, given that evolution is pretty much the only alternative to
anything that just about any religion has to offer (a creator), I'll
wear your inference as having some validity.
> Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity,
> Judaism, Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw
> this conclusion from because surely evolution is science. Well I
> hate to rain on your parade but it is not.
Granted evolution does not lead to any hard and fast predictions
as to the outcome of any evolutionary event, it does offer guidelines.
That may very well be the best that we can hope for, short of decoding
the entire genome(s) available to us. Your lumping evolution in with
brain-rot can only be described as a slip-up on your part.
> Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be
> determined to be a science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE,
> DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE. Evolution meets none of theses
> criteria.
Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution can be observed, demonstrated and the
demonstrations repeated. Try this exercise for example. Grab a
colony of micro-organisms and add some antibiotics at sufficient
strength to kill off about 75% of the available colony. Wait until
the colony re-establishes its former size and add the same
concentration of antibiotic. Less of the colony will be killed off.
Repeat the process until you have an antibiotic resistant strain of
the original micro-organism. Increase the strength of the antibiotic
until, regardless of the concentration, a negligable proportion of the
colony dies. You have now encouraged the development of an antibiotic
immune strain of the bacteria. Thus evolution, survival of the
fittest, is seen in action.
Unfortunately, this is more than a thought experiment. Because of
the wide-spread and indiscriminant use of antibiotics since their
introduction, many strains of resistant and immune bacteria now exist.
A large proportion of them exist in our hospitals, where they have
proven very difficult to erradicate. It is for this reason that
pharmaceutical companies spend so much time and money developing new
types of antibiotics; the older ones aren't nearly as effective as
they once were.
> Moreover evolution doesn't even meet the criteria for a
> HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise dictionary a hypothesis
> is: a presupposition that can be supported by known facts.
> Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by
> the definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from
> which to support it as even an hypothesis.
Funny, the theory of evolution fits the criteria for a science as
you defined above. Thus, using your reasoning, it's also a
hypothesis. Thank you for playing and don't let the door hit your
arse on the way out.
> So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only
> conclude that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of
> evolution, is the BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds
> religions cling too?
Wrong again. You have attempted to remove scientific probabilty
from the theory of evolution. The fact that you tried (and failed)
to do so has had absolutely no effect on reality.
> The only difference between the religions of, for example
> "Christianity and Evolution" is that the two factions have a
> different God.
If that is true, which is the more abhorrent? I'll leave that
question for another debate.
> What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what
> all evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME,
> and time alone. Take away that all important factor of time and your
> world ceases to be. No time, no evolution, no you.
Oh for fuck's sake! If you remove time then you have no universe.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing, given that I wouldn't be here to
answer inane dribblings from clueless shits like you (who would also
not be here).
> My point is not to tell you that you have a God named time, it is
> to tell you that evolution is indeed a religion.
You've told me that you're clueless. Is that sort of what you had
in mind?
Non Serviam,
Doug
P.S - You know what annoyed me the most about your post? It was the
unecessary and gratuitious use of excessive CAPITALISATION in your
SENTENCES. Of course, this is to be expected from the sort of person
best described as a PRETENTIOUS WANKER.
--
_.---------------------------------------------------------------------.
_ // Human flesh, the other other white meat. |
\X/ Amiga Users - Someone you trust is one of us. |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------'
Paul G. Wenthold
>
> > >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
> > >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
> > >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
> > >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
> > >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
> > >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
> > >again your breed's dishonesty.
>
> THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to as
> the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my point.
> :o)
>
And atomic theory is referred to as "atomic theory." Does
that mean that the existence of atoms is not fact?
paul
--
Invention is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% inspiration,
and 2% butterscotch ripple --- Willie Wonka
Rev Chuck
>
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
> > > >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
> > > >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
> > > >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
> > > >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
> > > >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
> > > >again your breed's dishonesty.
> >
> > Thanks, you just used the KEY word for me (2nd sentence 16th word)
> > THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to as
> > the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my point.
> > :o)
> >
>
> And atomic theory is referred to as "atomic theory." Does
> that mean that the existence of atoms is not fact?
>
> paul
>
Yeah, what good is science, anyway? It's just a bunch of theories.
--
Rev Chuck,
Alt.Atheism Mark of the IPU #203,
Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
maff91
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:57:02 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
>>
>> In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
>> >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
>> >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
>> >evolutionists.
>
>> No, you may not. Even as an atheist I am free to belive that cats can give
>> birth to dogs.
>
> Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
>those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
>other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
>seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
>birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
Why don't you get a Science Education, Nameless? All the major
Christian denominations have accepted the theory of Evolution without
giving up their faith. What Fundie Fanatic sect do you belong to?
>
>
>> > Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
>> >Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from
>> >because surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but
>> >it is not.
>
>> > Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
>> > science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
>
>> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
>NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
>Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
>the hell can you dispute that? Save yourself a lame rebuttal by at least
>calling it "the THEORY of evolution" I do not claim evolution is NOT true,
>just that's it's not true SCIENCE. Big difference.
You evidence for this assertion is:
1. You are the World's leading expert on Science
2. You're a moron
3. You're Fundie Fanatic
4. Other Specify
>
>> > Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover, evolution doesn't even
>> >meet the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise
>> >dictionary a hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known
>> >facts.
>
>> > Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
>> > definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
>> > support it as even an hypothesis.
>
>> > So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
>> > that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
>> > BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
>
>> You should probably look up the definition of religion in that Oxford concise
>> dictionary of yours.
>
> Well I did look it up to humour you. According to Oxford concise dictionary
>1995 edition, the fifth definition for religion is: " a thing that one is
>devoted to". Atheism inherently has to have devotion to the theory of
>evolution, otherwise atheists would have no choice but to BE theist. I
Is that why majority of the Evolutionists are religionists? Is that
why all major Christian denominations have accepted the theory of
Evolution without giving up their faith? What Fundie Fanatic sect do
you belong to?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
>suggest to you that you BUY a dictionary so that you may learn the terms from
>whence your limited understanding of the english language came. Calling
>evolution a religion (in the typical sense) was using a little poetic
>licence. I should have phrased it more aptly for YOU in LAYMAN'S terms. I
>thought that most readers could ascertain that, but apparently
>you..........(ahh screw it....flame thrower not needed)
>
>> > The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
>> > Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
>> > What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
>> > evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
>alone.
>> > Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
>> > time, no evolution, no you.
>>
>> You are not making any sense...
>>
>
> Sense is something which not all people can grasp. I myself would never
>find that Einstein's theory of relativity would make all that much SENSE to
>me, however, that does not mean that there is no sense to his equation. Just
That's the first intelligent you have said.
>as my supposition does not make sense to you, does not mean that there is no
Without evidence, it's just an assertion.
>intrinsic sense to it. For YOUR benefit I will rephrase it. You simply
>cannot comprehend it. Plain enough for you?
>
>
> Reply if you wish. I think I might like waging a war of words with you
>through this thread. I dont even need my flame thrower to burn you to a
>crisp. roflmao :P
Try it, Nameless! Make my day!
>
> James Jinks
>
> "If a man will begin with uncertainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he
>will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties"
>
> "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see
>nothing but sea"
>
> "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor
>to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider"
>
> Francis Bacon 1561-1626
>
> "Quid quid agas, prudenter agas, et respice finem"
>
> Aristotle 384-322 bc
>
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
*****************************************************
maff91
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:22:08 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6npcce$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Cabrutus" <loc...@geocities.ddddddddddd.com> wrote:
>> You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so I can
>> show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly observed
>> fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change through
>> time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not only
>> provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
>> Creationism.
>
> Liar?
Yep! Bearer of false witness!
>
> Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in different
>stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species. ALL the
>worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet been found.
>I repeat; name one!
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=fossils&Where=FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
>To correct you sir, the hypohtesis/theory (call it what you wish) that
>explains away these gaps in the fossil record is called "punctuated
>equalibrium" and was offered as an explanation for said gaps in the fossil
>record.
Nope. Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=gould&Where=FAQs
>
>
> According to: Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge two influential
>evolutionists
>
> This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in
>the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because
>these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable
>species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable
>species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long
>periods of _equilibrium_ (no evolutionary change) during which time many
>offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced -- _punctuated_ by
>relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record.
It's a Creationist misquote.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
>
> Perhaps you should take less of what you are told for granted, and spend some
You should stop peddling lies put out by Creationist "Scientists" who
have been proved to be liars again and again.
>time in a university studying this subject like I do. Then perhaps you'll find
Are you sure you are studying in an accredited college or is it a
Fundie Fanatic college?
>you will evolve at a faster rate with your head out of your ass! :oP
>
>
>> Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
>> loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/
>>
>>
>
>
Landis D. Ragon
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
>>
>> In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
>> >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
>> >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
>> >evolutionists.
>
>> No, you may not. Even as an atheist I am free to belive that cats can give
>> birth to dogs.
>
> Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
>those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
>other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
>seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
>birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
>
Actually, no. A cat giving birth to a dog would be evidence against
the current theory of evolution, not evidence for it.
>
>> > Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
>> >Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion from
>> >because surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade but
>> >it is not.
>
>> > Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be a
>> > science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
>
>> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
>NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
>Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
>the hell can you dispute that? Save yourself a lame rebuttal by at least
>calling it "the THEORY of evolution" I do not claim evolution is NOT true,
>just that's it's not true SCIENCE. Big difference.
Translation:"I dasn't read the articles at these URLs because they may
damage my world view"
>
>> > Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover, evolution doesn't even
>> >meet the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise
>> >dictionary a hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known
>> >facts.
>
>> > Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
>> > definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
>> > support it as even an hypothesis.
>
>> > So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only conclude
>> > that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
>> > BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
>
>> You should probably look up the definition of religion in that Oxford concise
>> dictionary of yours.
>
> Well I did look it up to humour you. According to Oxford concise dictionary
>1995 edition, the fifth definition for religion is: " a thing that one is
>devoted to". Atheism inherently has to have devotion to the theory of
>evolution, otherwise atheists would have no choice but to BE theist. I
>suggest to you that you BUY a dictionary so that you may learn the terms from
>whence your limited understanding of the english language came. Calling
>evolution a religion (in the typical sense) was using a little poetic
>licence. I should have phrased it more aptly for YOU in LAYMAN'S terms. I
>thought that most readers could ascertain that, but apparently
>you..........(ahh screw it....flame thrower not needed)
>
>> > The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity and
>> > Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
>> > What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
>> > evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
>alone.
>> > Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be. No
>> > time, no evolution, no you.
>>
>> You are not making any sense...
>>
>
> Sense is something which not all people can grasp. I myself would never
>find that Einstein's theory of relativity would make all that much SENSE to
>me, however, that does not mean that there is no sense to his equation. Just
>as my supposition does not make sense to you, does not mean that there is no
>intrinsic sense to it. For YOUR benefit I will rephrase it. You simply
>cannot comprehend it. Plain enough for you?
>
>
> Reply if you wish. I think I might like waging a war of words with you
>through this thread. I dont even need my flame thrower to burn you to a
>crisp. roflmao :P
>
> James Jinks
>
> "If a man will begin with uncertainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he
>will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties"
>
> "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see
>nothing but sea"
>
> "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor
>to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider"
>
> Francis Bacon 1561-1626
>
> "Quid quid agas, prudenter agas, et respice finem"
>
> Aristotle 384-322 bc
>
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35A17065...@hotmail.com>,
Jason Wood <jayw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in
different
> > stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species. ALL the
> > worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet been
found.
> > I repeat; name one!
>
> Bio offered), and in the lab, I _SAW_ fossils that shown charateristics
> of two (even three) different types. Such as one skull that showed
charateristics
>
> of a reptile and amphibian, a reptile and bird, a reptile and mammle. Thse
> transition species shiow what you say doesn't exist. They show what you
> say every scientist say doesn't exists. Exactly, where did you 'find' that
> no scientist says they were found. I've seen them...and you say they don't
exist?
>
Sure, and German sheppards share characteristics with Jack Russell terriors,
but that doen not mean that one evolved from the other.
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35A10DE0...@hotmail.com>,
to see it that evolution remains a theory. Albeit, quite possibly true. But is
still fails to meet the prerquisites to use the term of "science" in it's most
literal meaning. Try reading the original post again.
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35A172E6...@hotmail.com>,
Jason Wood <jayw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where
did
> > those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to
insert
> > other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't
even
> > seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID
give
> > birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
> >
>
> and if cats gave birth to dogs, that would not be evolution, that'd
> be a freak of nature.
Well in the absence of a fossil record that clearly demonstrates through a
series of fossils, that one species did indeed, (over time) transform itself
into another species, the premise for evolution has been dubbed "punctuated
equalibrium". ie: freaks of nature creates new species. Look it up you might
learn something.
> > Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
> > NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
> > Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
> >
>
> God damn it!! Haven't you been paying attention. Have you read
> the responces people have given you? There must have been at
> LEAST 10 people who have proven you WORNG that evolution IS
> observable, IS demostratable, and IS repeatable. Open your dame
> eyes, and your mind for that matter.
>
Um, sorry, wrong you are. Man can gentically alter species. Man can also
cross breed species through natural means. That however, is not evolution.
And I sure would like to see an animal over the generations transform itself
into another. That would be very interesting indeed. They only thing I have
seen "observable" is the biochemistry students down the hall, playing with
genes in petri dishes and test tubes. But that is science. Evolution it is
not.
Furthermore, why the hell should I take your word for granted from a guy
who cannot even spell four and five letter words such as "wrong" or "damn".
It's not spelled "dame" by the way.
rotflmao@u
James Jinks
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
> Why don't you get a Science Education, Nameless? All the major
> Christian denominations have accepted the theory of Evolution without
> giving up their faith. What Fundie Fanatic sect do you belong to?
Well to address your first question, I have. I just received my masters
degree on the subject actualy. (U of C) To address the second of being
nameless, my two names are so common (first and last) that you would
misconstrue them for an alias anyway. But for your information, the name is
Michael Smith. And to address the issue number three you set forth, I will
spell it out for you as follows:
I never once stated that I was from any "fundie sect". I never stated I was
theist in anyway, shape, or form whatsoever. Furthermore, I never stated I was
from any "sect" PERIOD!
You see what the problem is with this news group is that Alt.Atheism has far
too many invading xians and various other theists. This breeds very much
discontent and contempt for these invading hordes. Quite possibly, rightly so.
So that when someone such as myself differs with the atheist "collective
opinion" on any matter, it is because that person ***MUST*** be a theist. Well
not so in this case, and I will enlighten you.
I am sure that many of the "Atheists" that post here, at one point in their
lives, believed in one god or another. From what I have read here, many
atheists seem to have a VERY good grasp of (for example) the bible and it's
contents. That makes them quite knowledgeable on that subject ***WITHOUT***
necessarily ***BELIEVING*** it. Well, that is the position I find myself in.
I know from where my opinons are formed, but that does not imply that I have
to believe all the teachings that led to my opinions, to the "letter of the
law". I hope you comprehend that because I know of no other way to make it
any more simple for your benefit.
It might do you some good to read what is there in front of you and not
what you think you see between the lines. Your unsubstantiated conjecture
simply put, makes you look hot headed, easily irritable, incapable of
rational thought, and more importantly, immature. Im sorry to say that, I
intend no offence. But people who shoot their mouths off without having
stopped to think and ponder what a person was trying to say, fit the
aforementioned descriptions. Once again, no offence. :o) I mean that
sincerely.
Sure, I agree with the atheists here, let the theists post their own news
groups. But on the flip side of the coin, do not automatically throw all your
eggs in one basket either. You cannot paint all people with such a wide brush.
James Jinks,
By the way, read below, I have these on my bookshelf, do you?
You mention "science education" in your quote above. Well what exactly is the
realm of science? My interpretation of it, is to question what is around us.
That is exactly what I have done. :o)
"Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, off hand,
be imputed to chance, and does require some attempt at special
explanation as has been felt by most paleontologists."
George Gaylord Simpsom (renouned evolutionist) (refering to missing
transitional fossils) in his book: Tempo and Mode In Evolution
On the same subject, Stephan J. Gould (proponent of the punctuated
equalibrium theory of evolution) stated in Natural History magazine (May
1977 pp. 12-16)
"Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that
is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and
descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient
stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a
wing?"
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35a189e0.0@bigdog>,
"bob" <b...@eac.daily> wrote:
>
>
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> happens
> >to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for
> human
> >existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>
> saying in the second sentence that evolution replaces a creator, at least as
> far as atheists are concerned, based on your third sentence. So you are
> claiming that evolution tries to explain the beginnings of life. You are
> totally wrong. Evolution explains change, and in order for there to be
> change, there has to be something to change FROM. Catching the drift? IOW,
> evolution does not and has never tried to explain how life began, let alone
> how the universe started. If indeed, it had a start.
>
In the most literal sense of the WORD evolution I have little choice but to
concur with you. Evolution means exactly what the name implies. Touche. But
evolution is: (as being taught in our public schools today)
A consequence of one hell of a lot of very dense Hydrogen that led too the
"Big Bang" theory which in turn formed our planet. On our planet eons ago,
chemicals, (by pure chance) formed to make amino acids, (by pure chance) of
which in turn formed proteins,(by pure chance) which make up deoxyribonucleic
acid (D.N.A.). The basis of life as we know it. Which the very first single
celled organim was blessed with, and evolution (to use your
defintion)proceeded from that point onwards. I wish I had those kind of odds
winning the lottery LoL.
So by the literal interpretation of evolution I stand corrected. Something I
have never seen anyone do here. (admit they were wrong) Perhaps they weren't
"secure enough". But I digress. Evolution as being taught to my kids at school
on the other hand is exactly what I stated above. The Universe evolved, from
which life evolved. Get the picture?
It may be dogshit too you, but you just stepped in it. :o)
James Jinks
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35A08F...@telusplanet.net>,
> Liar. Since I assume you are not stupid,
Wrong term, correct assumption.
> Known facts about life include it's existence in many varieties which
> seem related to varying degrees,
I am not arguing that point. Sure there is similarity in many living
creatures as well as plant life. Take dogs for example. They are all in the
same family, they share similar D.N.A., the sperm from one breed can
fertilize the egg from another. But that does not mean that all the varieties
of dogs we have today evolved from one another. All it means is that they are
inter bread. Where do you see evolution in that analogy?
> the fossil record of new species appearing over time, the basis of DNA in
heredity,
Again, I agree. Yes indeed we do find new species in the fossil record all
the time. In fact we find new species that are still living today. What we
have not found yet is the progression of fossils which clearly demonstrates
the "progression" of one species to another. Example: Birds are thought to be
the decendants of dinosaurs. Well where are the fossils of the
tranformational intermediate creatures? Simply put we (mankind)have not found
any yet. We have many fossils of both species, so where are the
intermediates?
On the subject of DNA, I am glad you raised that issue. DNA can only be
created BY DNA. So where did that first double helix come from? Beats the
shit out of me. And I sure as hell would never be so bold as to put forth
such an ubsubstantiated theory as it just happened or it was alway there.
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
> So even if evolution doesn't meet these "criteria", why does that make
> it a religion. Why doesn't it make it a theory, or a view point or a
> form of government for that matter. I don't see your conection between
> it not being an exact science so it being a religion. Please clarify
> your cause and effect here. By reading your post, I guess religion can't
> be considered any form of science either. Since it does not meet any
> "criteria". It doesn't even meet the definition of a hypothesis, since
> there are no real facts to back it up.
>
Oxford concise dictionary 1995 Religion: 5. a thing that one is devoted to.
Now I do realize that there are definitions of that word that more readily
spring to mind. Such as, for example: Christianity or Bhudism or what have
you.
But by using ***that*** defintion it is possible to postulate that:
In the absence of a divine creator, all that remains to explain our
existence as humans is evolution. If evolution is your belief then you are
devoted to it. Therefore, as the perfectly acceptable usage of the word
allows, I called evolution a "religion". Next time you wish to try and
correct my usage of a word may I suggest to you first that you look it first
to see if any other meanings are applicable to it's usage.
That particular usage of "religion" is an etymon. Or do you need me to
explain the word etymon to you aswell?
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nq001$m...@newsops.execpc.com>,
rot13....@rkrpcp.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:30:04 GMT, in alt.atheism, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
> scrawled in blood:
>
> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
happens
> >to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
> >existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>
> Since your argument rests on that....hey fuck you it's trash.
>
> Don
>
> alt.atheism atheist #51
Does " fuck you" mean like "fuck me"?
I do not think you would enjoy it very much. I would just lay there and
count your mistakes! LoL
I pity the man who disagrees but does not possess the intellect to
construct a rebuttal as to why he does.
"Swearing is the way a WEAK mind speaks forcefully"
Mark Twain / Samuel Clemmens
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
> In light of you giving these two examples I am going to use one of
> your quotes:"not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
> any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
> pea-brain"
Are you going to just criticize? Or do you plan to offer something
subjective?
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35A0E499...@newbridge.com>,
Greg Gyetko <ggy...@newbridge.com> wrote:
>
> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> OK, look, here's a little instruction book for you.
>
> 1. Put both hands on your penis.
> 2. Move your hands up and down
> 3. Direct any liquid issued AWAY from your keyboard.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg.
>
Is that the best you can do and still keep your cool?
Ok, ok, I will concede that my "evolution" was a little more endowing than
yours. and that, yes it does require two hands. Maybe in a couple million
years your family tree will catch up. LoL
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure did! I guess
science is not always correct now is it?
Do you wish to provide me with more amunition?
<snip>
James Jinks is rotflmfao@you
David Johnston
>
> In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
> >
> > In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
> > >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
> > >evolutionists.
>
> > birth to dogs.
>
> those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
> other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
> seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
> birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake!
Wrong. That would be revolution.
Gerhard van Schalkwyk
<6nrgr7$32n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry,
biology,
>> >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary
theory,
>> >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
>> >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any
threads
>> >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
>> >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just
showing
>> >again your breed's dishonesty.
>
>
> Thanks, you just used the KEY word for me (2nd sentence 16th word)
>THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to as
>the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my
point.
>:o)
>
One :
As with theists in general, you are picking from the above reply only the
single elements, on which you then desperately try to base a sound argument
on. (cf. Using verse x,y and z but no verse p,q and t) The fact still
remains : Your model/argument is not consistend with all/most of the
evidence.
Two :
More correctly, it is refered to as the "Principal of Evolution". Which is
a much stronger word/concept than theory.
The basis underlying the idea of Principal is this :
Up until now (as far as I know), whenever some biological thing has been
observed it resulted in 1. that observation being consistend with
evolutionary theory, or 2. the refinement (no, not destruction) of
evolutionary theory.
I can refrase this in a scientifically stronger manner :
Show me any biological phenomena, and the biologcial community will be able
to show that Either the phenomena can be readily explained in terms of
evolutionary theory, Or most of the phenomena can be explained by
evolutionary theory. This second outcome then results in our *refinement* of
evolutionary theory, not the abolishment thereof.
Dirk de Beer
(Using Gerhard's new reader)
MagyckMe
says:
>> It is even refered to as the "theory of evolution" in our public
>> schools. Thanks for making my point.
I just want to say ::: eyes get big; skin pales; temperature becomes shocky :::
NAMELESS WENT TO SCHOOL??? ::: breathes deeply to calm self ::: Hey, Nameless!
Care to share which matchbook cover provided your diploma?
===========================================================
"I speak the way, and the way is open." ...Louise Cooper, the Chaos Gate
Trilogy
"Even Chaos has a pattern." ...bumper sticker
"'And who do you think created Chaos?' said the lawyer." ;-)
Greg Gyetko
> Well in the absence of a fossil record that clearly demonstrates through a
> series of fossils, that one species did indeed, (over time) transform itself
> into another species, the premise for evolution has been dubbed "punctuated
> equalibrium". ie: freaks of nature creates new species. Look it up you might
> learn something.
Moron, the "proof" for evolution is not NOT NOT NOT in the fossil record (that's
emphasized negation, not multiple negation).
The "proof" of Common Descent (evolution) is the FACT FACT FACT (again, for
emphasis) that your DNA is 99.? % identical to the active DNA in a chimpanzee.
It's got a lower percentage of similarity with EVERYTHING in the animal kingdom.
Got it?
> Um, sorry, wrong you are. Man can gentically alter species. Man can also
> cross breed species through natural means. That however, is not evolution.
Evolution: change in allele frequencies in a population.
Do you know what those words mean?
> And I sure would like to see an animal over the generations transform itself
> into another.
So would I. How about peppered moths? How about humans with extra teeth? How
about flies with legs growing out of their heads? How about plants with varied
flowers?
> That would be very interesting indeed. They only thing I have seen "observable"
> is the biochemistry students down the hall, playing with genes in petri dishes
> and test tubes. But that is science. Evolution it is not.
Playing with genes? So you looked in the wrong lab and blame us because you
didn't find evidence of evolution there?
Here's a trick. Go look in that lab again. Watch those grad students. Notice a
couple things:
a) The webbing between their fingers, evolutionary leftover from a more aquatic
existence.
b) Inter-sexual behaviour. Watch as the females play hard to get and the males
strut their stuff.
c) See that guy with the bruised jaw? He just had his wisdom teeth removed.
You see? Human jaws are shrinking at a faster rate than the teeth are.
All are evolution in action. Take a closer look next time.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway
so why bother?"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
maff91
>In article <35A10DE0...@hotmail.com>,
Do you know the difference between fact and theory? When you know the
difference, you can come back.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>still fails to meet the prerquisites to use the term of "science" in it's most
What is your definition of Science?
>literal meaning. Try reading the original post again.
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
*****************************************************
maff91
>In article <35A172E6...@hotmail.com>,
> Jason Wood <jayw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where
>did
>> > those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to
>insert
>> > other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't
>even
>> > seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID
>give
>> > birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
>> >
>>
>> Evolution, haven't you been paying attention?
>> and if cats gave birth to dogs, that would not be evolution, that'd
>> be a freak of nature.
>
> Well in the absence of a fossil record that clearly demonstrates through a
>series of fossils, that one species did indeed, (over time) transform itself
>into another species, the premise for evolution has been dubbed "punctuated
>equalibrium". ie: freaks of nature creates new species. Look it up you might
>learn something.
>
>
>
>> > Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
>> > NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
>> > Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
>> >
>>
>> God damn it!! Haven't you been paying attention. Have you read
>> the responces people have given you? There must have been at
>> LEAST 10 people who have proven you WORNG that evolution IS
>> observable, IS demostratable, and IS repeatable. Open your dame
>> eyes, and your mind for that matter.
>>
>
> Um, sorry, wrong you are. Man can gentically alter species. Man can also
>cross breed species through natural means. That however, is not evolution.
Please provide references for the above assertions.
>And I sure would like to see an animal over the generations transform itself
>into another. That would be very interesting indeed. They only thing I have
>seen "observable" is the biochemistry students down the hall, playing with
>genes in petri dishes and test tubes. But that is science. Evolution it is
Please provide definitions of Evolution and Science.
>not.
>
>
> Furthermore, why the hell should I take your word for granted from a guy
>who cannot even spell four and five letter words such as "wrong" or "damn".
>It's not spelled "dame" by the way.
You have shown yourself to be a bearer of false witness. Scientists
from all over the world (of all faith) are working on Evolutionary
Biology. All the major Christian denominations have accepted the
Scientific validity of the theory of evolution without giving up their
faith. What Fundie Fanatic sect do you belong to?
>
>
> rotflmao@u
>
> James Jinks
Greg Gyetko
> I am sure that many of the "Atheists" that post here, at one point in their
> lives, believed in one god or another. From what I have read here, many
> atheists seem to have a VERY good grasp of (for example) the bible and it's
> contents. That makes them quite knowledgeable on that subject ***WITHOUT***
> necessarily ***BELIEVING*** it. Well, that is the position I find myself in.
> I know from where my opinons are formed, but that does not imply that I have
> to believe all the teachings that led to my opinions, to the "letter of the
> law".
But the thing, I actually *know* what's written in the bible.
*You* don't even know what evolution is and yet you
a) seek to argue about it
b) claim to be in a position of knowledge.
You see the problem?
Jake
> A consequence of one hell of a lot of very dense Hydrogen that led too the
>"Big Bang" theory which in turn formed our planet. On our planet eons ago,
>chemicals, (by pure chance) formed to make amino acids, (by pure chance) of
>which in turn formed proteins,(by pure chance) which make up deoxyribonucleic
>acid (D.N.A.). The basis of life as we know it. Which the very first single
>celled organim was blessed with, and evolution (to use your
>defintion)proceeded from that point onwards. I wish I had those kind of odds
>winning the lottery LoL.
Good analogy. Lets use the lottery to show where your wrong here. Lets
say there's a 50 million dollar pot and 3 million people play. One
person wins and gets all of the money. Hooray for him. The next week
the pot is the same and 6 million people play. This now increases the
odds for more then one person to win. You see ? The more people that
play, the more the odds are that the money will be collected by
multiple winners.
Now lets take this to the big bang. Lets say that the Bang happens and
from it comes (for the sake of argument) 3 million planets. Out of
these 3 million lets say that only 1 planet has the necessary
requirements to support life. Now lets say that the Bang actually
produced 6 billion. Now the odds are better. 12 million, even more so.
As the more planets are formed, the more the chances for life to
spring up. So you see, it wasn't *chance* that created life, just the
odds.
Jake
atheist #678
Otherwise known as lilbudha1
Remove the word JAKE to send e-mail
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
4 noble truths...
1. Life sucks
2. Life sucks because you want things.
3. Life will stop sucking when you stop wanting things.
4. Be a good person.
The atheist version...
1. Church sucks.
2. Church sucks because they want your things.
3. Church will stop sucking when you stop going.
4. Learn to think for yourself.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Christopher A. Lee
> <snip>
>>
>> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
>> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
>> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
>
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
No.
>world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure did! I guess
No.
>science is not always correct now is it?
That's an urban legend. The educated knew the world was a sphere, as did
seafarers and other coastal folk - because when a ship appeared over the
horizon they saw the tops of the masts first.
Columbus thought the earth was smaller than it was, and was looking for
the opposite route to India. He only took provoisions for what he thought
the length of the voyage was - and struck lucky.
maff91
>
>
>> Why don't you get a Science Education, Nameless? All the major
>> Christian denominations have accepted the theory of Evolution without
>> giving up their faith. What Fundie Fanatic sect do you belong to?
>
> Well to address your first question, I have. I just received my masters
>degree on the subject actualy. (U of C) To address the second of being
>nameless, my two names are so common (first and last) that you would
>misconstrue them for an alias anyway. But for your information, the name is
>Michael Smith. And to address the issue number three you set forth, I will
>spell it out for you as follows:
>
> I never once stated that I was from any "fundie sect". I never stated I was
>theist in anyway, shape, or form whatsoever. Furthermore, I never stated I was
>from any "sect" PERIOD!
>
> You see what the problem is with this news group is that Alt.Atheism has far
>too many invading xians and various other theists. This breeds very much
>discontent and contempt for these invading hordes. Quite possibly, rightly so.
>So that when someone such as myself differs with the atheist "collective
>opinion" on any matter, it is because that person ***MUST*** be a theist. Well
>not so in this case, and I will enlighten you.
>
>
> I am sure that many of the "Atheists" that post here, at one point in their
>lives, believed in one god or another. From what I have read here, many
>atheists seem to have a VERY good grasp of (for example) the bible and it's
>contents. That makes them quite knowledgeable on that subject ***WITHOUT***
>necessarily ***BELIEVING*** it. Well, that is the position I find myself in.
>I know from where my opinons are formed, but that does not imply that I have
>to believe all the teachings that led to my opinions, to the "letter of the
>law". I hope you comprehend that because I know of no other way to make it
>any more simple for your benefit.
>
> It might do you some good to read what is there in front of you and not
>what you think you see between the lines. Your unsubstantiated conjecture
>simply put, makes you look hot headed, easily irritable, incapable of
>rational thought, and more importantly, immature. Im sorry to say that, I
>intend no offence. But people who shoot their mouths off without having
>stopped to think and ponder what a person was trying to say, fit the
>aforementioned descriptions. Once again, no offence. :o) I mean that
>sincerely.
OK! :-)
>
>
> Sure, I agree with the atheists here, let the theists post their own news
> groups. But on the flip side of the coin, do not automatically throw all your
>eggs in one basket either. You cannot paint all people with such a wide brush.
>
>
>
>
> James Jinks,
>
>By the way, read below, I have these on my bookshelf, do you?
>You mention "science education" in your quote above. Well what exactly is the
>realm of science? My interpretation of it, is to question what is around us.
>That is exactly what I have done. :o)
>
>
>
>
>"Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, off hand,
> be imputed to chance, and does require some attempt at special
> explanation as has been felt by most paleontologists."
>
>
> George Gaylord Simpsom (renouned evolutionist) (refering to missing
>transitional fossils) in his book: Tempo and Mode In Evolution
>
>
> On the same subject, Stephan J. Gould (proponent of the punctuated
>equalibrium theory of evolution) stated in Natural History magazine (May
>1977 pp. 12-16)
1977 is a long time ago in terms of Evolutionary Biology research. I
suggest that you read Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett's
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/generic-quicksearch-query/002-6199345-6773203
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/generic-quicksearch-query/002-6199345-6773203
Web sites to explore
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Science Journals
http://www.newscientist.com/
http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.sciam.com/
You might also wish to visit the News group talk.origins
> "Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that
> is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and
> descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient
> stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a
> wing?"
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
*****************************************************
maff91
>In article <35a189e0.0@bigdog>,
> "bob" <b...@eac.daily> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
>> happens
>> >to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for
>> human
>> >existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>>
>> Taking your first sentence refering to "....a creator", you seem to be
>> saying in the second sentence that evolution replaces a creator, at least as
>> far as atheists are concerned, based on your third sentence. So you are
>> claiming that evolution tries to explain the beginnings of life. You are
>> totally wrong. Evolution explains change, and in order for there to be
>> change, there has to be something to change FROM. Catching the drift? IOW,
>> evolution does not and has never tried to explain how life began, let alone
>> how the universe started. If indeed, it had a start.
>>
> Well then I shall reiterate it for you.
>
>
> In the most literal sense of the WORD evolution I have little choice but to
>concur with you. Evolution means exactly what the name implies. Touche. But
>evolution is: (as being taught in our public schools today)
>
>
> A consequence of one hell of a lot of very dense Hydrogen that led too the
>"Big Bang" theory which in turn formed our planet. On our planet eons ago,
>chemicals, (by pure chance) formed to make amino acids, (by pure chance) of
>which in turn formed proteins,(by pure chance) which make up deoxyribonucleic
>acid (D.N.A.). The basis of life as we know it. Which the very first single
>celled organim was blessed with, and evolution (to use your
>defintion)proceeded from that point onwards. I wish I had those kind of odds
>winning the lottery LoL.
>
> So by the literal interpretation of evolution I stand corrected. Something I
>have never seen anyone do here. (admit they were wrong) Perhaps they weren't
>"secure enough". But I digress. Evolution as being taught to my kids at school
>on the other hand is exactly what I stated above. The Universe evolved, from
Yes. Theory of Evolution is about change. The origins of life is
covered by abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
>which life evolved. Get the picture?
>
>
> It may be dogshit too you, but you just stepped in it. :o)
>
>
> James Jinks
>
maff91
>In article <35A08F...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> maliciously wrote:
>>
>
>> Liar. Since I assume you are not stupid,
>
> Wrong term, correct assumption.
>
>
>> Known facts about life include it's existence in many varieties which
>> seem related to varying degrees,
>
> I am not arguing that point. Sure there is similarity in many living
>creatures as well as plant life. Take dogs for example. They are all in the
>same family, they share similar D.N.A., the sperm from one breed can
>fertilize the egg from another. But that does not mean that all the varieties
>of dogs we have today evolved from one another. All it means is that they are
>inter bread. Where do you see evolution in that analogy?
>
>> the fossil record of new species appearing over time, the basis of DNA in
>heredity,
>
> Again, I agree. Yes indeed we do find new species in the fossil record all
>the time. In fact we find new species that are still living today. What we
>have not found yet is the progression of fossils which clearly demonstrates
Fossils are rare occurrences, but the fossils already found show the
progression.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>the "progression" of one species to another. Example: Birds are thought to be
>the decendants of dinosaurs. Well where are the fossils of the
>tranformational intermediate creatures? Simply put we (mankind)have not found
>any yet. We have many fossils of both species, so where are the
>intermediates?
Try http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/rexfiles/claws.html
>
> On the subject of DNA, I am glad you raised that issue. DNA can only be
>created BY DNA. So where did that first double helix come from? Beats the
Try reading M. Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity". You should by now
Science is dynamic. The search for knowledge will continue but already
we know of the scenarios under which it could have occurred. Just
because we can't explain everything at present doesn't mean that there
has to be a supernatural explanation for it.
>shit out of me. And I sure as hell would never be so bold as to put forth
>such an ubsubstantiated theory as it just happened or it was alway there.
I think you are confusing Abiogenesis with Evolution.
David Johnston
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
> > great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
> > whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
>
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
Absolutely and totally wrong. The great minds of that period were
convinced the world was round. They simply disagreed with Columbus's
calculations of it's size, believing it to be far larger than Columbus's
estimate so that he would surely run out of food and water. And you
know what? They were right. He didn't have enough food and water to
make it to China.
guess
> science is not always correct now is it?
>
> Do you wish to provide me with more amunition?
>
> <snip>
>
> James Jinks is rotflmfao@you
>
David Johnston
> Oxford concise dictionary 1995 Religion: 5. a thing that one is devoted to.
>
> Now I do realize that there are definitions of that word that more readily
> spring to mind. Such as, for example: Christianity or Bhudism or what have
> you.
That particular definition is metaphorical.
maff91
> <snip>
>>
>> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
>> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
>> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
>
>
>
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
>world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure did! I guess
>science is not always correct now is it?
>
> Do you wish to provide me with more amunition?
The point is there is no other theory which corresponds to the
evidence accumulated since Darwin's time. If you have some other
theory which corresponds to the evidence and can be tested and
verified, then you'll revolutionize Biology.
>
> <snip>
>
> James Jinks is rotflmfao@you
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
*****************************************************
Jason Wood
>
> Sure, and German sheppards share characteristics with Jack Russell terriors,
> but that doen not mean that one evolved from the other.
>
Right, it means they came from a comman ancestry. (sp?)
Jay
Jason Wood
> series of fossils, that one species did indeed, (over time) transform itself
> into another species, the premise for evolution has been dubbed "punctuated
> equalibrium". ie: freaks of nature creates new species. Look it up you might
> learn something.
>
Umm, yes. I gave you a list of fossil records that show how we evolved
from our ancesters. And now, a cat giving birth to a dog is not evolution.
Evolution would be if the cat had an extra limb (that came in good use)
or a more effective type of eye or even just having stronger legs which
makes it run faster from preditors. That's evolution.
> Um, sorry, wrong you are. Man can gentically alter species. Man can also
> cross breed species through natural means. That however, is not evolution.
> And I sure would like to see an animal over the generations transform itself
> into another. That would be very interesting indeed. They only thing I have
> seen "observable" is the biochemistry students down the hall, playing with
> genes in petri dishes and test tubes. But that is science. Evolution it is
> not.
>
Mosquitos in Central America that carries malaria. We used DDT to kill
them off earlier in the century. Now, they're immuned to it. There immune
systems
devoloped an immunity to it. Evolution.
> Furthermore, why the hell should I take your word for granted from a guy
> who cannot even spell four and five letter words such as "wrong" or "damn".
> It's not spelled "dame" by the way.
I'd take the word of someone that makes a few typo's over that of am
idiot.
oh! oh! LMAO@U!
oh! How do you like that! oh!
(if you're not sensing the sarcasm...you're worse off then i thought)
Jay
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>In article <6nq001$m...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> rot13....@rkrpcp.pbz.getridof.com (Don Kresch) wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 01:30:04 GMT, in alt.atheism, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
>happens
>> >to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
>> >existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>>
> <snip>
>
>> Since your argument rests on that....hey fuck you it's trash.
>>
>> Don
>
> Does " fuck you" mean like "fuck me"?
No, shithead.
>
> I do not think you would enjoy it very much. I would just lay there and
>count your mistakes! LoL
I wouldn't fuck you anyway. I prefer women. Call me crazy.
> I pity the man who disagrees but does not possess the intellect to
>construct a rebuttal as to why he does.
I pity the man who must lie to try to debate. I pity the man who uses
fallacies and falsehoods to construct his argument. You've proven yourself to
be a lying shithead git.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51
"Cartman, what the *hell* are you talking about?"
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
> <snip>
>>
>> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
>> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
>> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
>
>
>
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
>world ***WAS*** "flat"
No.
Jason Wood
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
My calling evolution a religion was tongue in cheek. The point that you failed
> to see it that evolution remains a theory. Albeit, quite possibly true. But is
> still fails to meet the prerquisites to use the term of "science" in it's most
> literal meaning. Try reading the original post again.
First, I did read your original post.
Second, as I recall, I wasn't replying to a post from you, I was replying
to the moronic ramblings of a creationist.
Jay
Sterling Crowe
maff91 wrote in message <35d5bcb9...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 21:16:29 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that
the
>>science is not always correct now is it?
Actually, "scientists" of that day tried to convince Christopher Columbus
that he was wrong in thinking that the spherical earth was only two thousand
miles in circumference.
They were completely right.
No one could possibly have known about that huge chunk of land in the way.
Which is not to say that science or scientists are always correct, but it is
to say that you can't believe everything you hear about science either.
>> Do you wish to provide me with more amunition?
Nahhh, just information.
Oldguyteck
Jason Wood wrote in message <35A2FBF5...@hotmail.com>...
Didn't do the cats any good, they still cant swing from the trees very good
LOL !
Ed...................(Oldguyteck) †
Roy Fulmer
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In light of you giving these two examples I am going to use one of
> > your quotes:"not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
> > any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
> > pea-brain"
>
> Are you going to just criticize? Or do you plan to offer something
> subjective?
>
> James Jinks
>
Oh, this is just too rich. Whattamaroon.
Royboy
#1134
Henry Barwood
>
> Posted to talk.origins for more comments
Why?
This gobbeldygook is obviously a regurgipost of the Sinderbot nonsense.
Snip.
Barwood
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
[...]
>My calling evolution a religion was tongue in cheek. The point that you failed
>to see it that evolution remains a theory.
DUH! Theory of electromagnetism remains a theory. Theories of
relativity (both) remain theories. ALL theories remain theories and
will remain so. There is NO "higher" stage in science. Once you have a
theory that explains data and predicts (not necessarily in a temporal
sense) correctly, you keep it. A new and better theory might or might
not come along later. However, to address an unfortunately common
misconception of science (I am not sure if this is what you had in
mind), THEORIES DO NOT BECOME LAWS - EVER. "Law", in science, is a
term used to name certain fundemental observations. There is nothing
more to a law. There are all kinds of laws: conservation laws, laws of
motion, formula laws (1/r^2 law... etc), gas laws, (electric) circuit
laws and many others. A "law" is simply a convenient way of
referencing certain useful observations by name. Laws may have simple
formulations but they are not explanations. Theories are built on, or
incorporate laws. In a sense, theory is the ultimate goal in science.
>Albeit, quite possibly true. But is
>still fails to meet the prerquisites to use the term of "science" in it's most
>literal meaning.
If TOE is unscientific, so is the theory of electromagnetism,
gravitation, standard model (or any of its extensions/replacements),
Newtonian mechanics, special theory of relativity, cosmological
theories...
>Try reading the original post again.
Try familiarizing yourself with science before attempting to declare
something unscientific.
--
To reply, remove 1st xyz, replace 2nd w/ com.
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
[...]
>> >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology,
>> >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary theory,
>> >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
>> >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any threads
>> >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common with
>> >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just showing
>> >again your breed's dishonesty.
> Thanks, you just used the KEY word for me (2nd sentence 16th word)
>THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to as
>the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my point.
>:o)
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. See my other
post. First you say evolution is not scientific. Next you imply it is
not scientific because it is a theory. Theory, Sir, is the ultimate in
science. Theories do not "grow up" to be anything else. Educate
yourself first.
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
>> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
>> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
>> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
>world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure did! I guess
>science is not always correct now is it?
>
> Do you wish to provide me with more amunition?
I would like to but I am afraid you would just go ahead and shoot
yourself in the other foot too. Even the ancient Greek scholars were
aware of the shape of the earth. That Columbus succeeded in spite of
scientists is an urban tale, as is that he was the first non-native to
visit the new continent. If anything, he failed in his calculations
and navigation.
Fritz
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz wrote:
Your last sentence should be tattooed onto the foreheads of many who
wander into this newsgroup.
I wonder if Jimi Jinx has equivalent problems with the theories of quantum
mechanics and gravity.
Fritz
--
"If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are
forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, an idiot
and a bounder." H.L. Mencken
Tim DeLaney
>
> Posted to talk.origins for more comments
>
>
> >In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
> >> >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
> >> >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
> >> >evolutionists.
> >
> >> birth to dogs.
> >
> > Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
> >those cats that you mention come from? Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
> >other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
> >seem to be able to spell the word "believe". And by the way, if cats DID give
> >birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
> >
> >
> >> >Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. ...
A bald assertion, and one which says absolutely nothing beyond: "I
hereby redefine the word 'Religion' to mean ... " The above has crossed
the line from argument to drivel.
<Remaining crappola mercifully snipped>
--
Tim DeLaney
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
--- Lord Kelvin
Cabrutus
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6nrgr7$32n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> > >Well, that's interesting. From geology, paleontology, chemistry,
biology,
> > >physics, and geography, we only get facts that SUPPORT evolutionary
theory,
> > >and very few, if any, which actually contradict it. By asserting that
> > >there are no facts supporting evolutionary theory, you remove any
threads
> > >of credibility you might have had. Dishonesty is extremely common
with
> > >theistic anti-evolutionists which I suspect you to be; you're just
showing
> > >again your breed's dishonesty.
>
>
> Thanks, you just used the KEY word for me (2nd sentence 16th word)
> THEORY.... thats what according to science it is. It is even refered to
as
> the "theory of evolution" in our public schools. Thanks for making my
point.
> :o)
Interesting. You don't respond to any of my evidence, and my assertion
that you're dishonest and that all of your credibility is gone also goes
uncontested. I'm glad we agree about that.
Do you know what a theory is? Are you trying to use "theory" pejoratively?
Do you reject theories of gravity, atoms, germs, plate tectonics,
relativity etc. because they're theories?
I wish Creationists wouldn't be so predictable. Do you actually have any
arguments against evolutionary theory (or any other theory)?
Another boring Creationist.
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/
Cabrutus
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6nth2n$b60$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <35A17065...@hotmail.com>,
> Jason Wood <jayw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in
> different
> > > stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species.
ALL the
> > > worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet
been
> found.
> > > I repeat; name one!
You're lying. Very common with Creationists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
[snip]
>
> Sure, and German sheppards share characteristics with Jack Russell
terriors,
> but that doen not mean that one evolved from the other.
No one thinks they did. They did, however, evolve from a common ancestor.
Cabrutus
>
[piggyback; my crappy news server missed Jimi's post]
> >In article <6npcce$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Cabrutus" <loc...@geocities.ddddddddddd.com> wrote:
> >> You asserted that evolutionary theory has no facts in its support, so
I can
> >> show you a liar and/or wrong by simply presenting the repeatedly
observed
> >> fact of evolution and a fossil record which shows overall a change
through
> >> time. In addition, there is the study of vestigial organs, which not
only
> >> provides strong support to evolutionary theory, but disconfirms
> >> Creationism.
> >
> > Liar?
Indeed. There are facts in support of evolutionary theory, and you
asserted there were none.
> >
> > Ok please do that sir. Name one single species that has fossils in
different
> >stages of evolution that can be shown mutating into another species. ALL
the
> >worlds most notable evolutionists agree that to date none have yet been
found.
> >I repeat; name one!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
You might also want to take a look at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
So when you said all of the world's most notable evolutionists agree that
there were no speciating organisms, you were lying again. This Creationist
dishonesty, although common, is worse than just being wrong, like
Creationists usually are about this subject.
So let's see if Jimi responds. And Jimi, when you do, I'd suggest ditching
the dishonesty tactic; it really doesn't look too good. Makes it look as
if you don't have any real evidence in your favor so you have to make
things up.
[snip]
magnus.h...@id.sigma.se
Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <6nq3l4$ipl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> magnus.h...@id.sigma.se wrote:
> >
> > In article <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just
> > >happens to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative
> > >for human existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are
> > >evolutionists.
>
> > No, you may not. Even as an atheist I am free to belive that cats can give
> > birth to dogs.
>
> Yes, you may believe whatever you wish, but let me ask you this: where did
> those cats that you mention come from?
I have no idea. Perhaps they are the offspring of sheep. Yes, that must be it.
> Evolution perhaps? God? Care to insert
> other foot? Are you really sure you do believe that? After all, you don't even
> seem to be able to spell the word "believe".
I give up. The spelling argument is so strong and is such a very good
indicator of your maturity that I don't know what to answer.
> And by the way, if cats DID give
> birth to dogs that WOULD be evolution. Give your head a shake! Duh!
Evolution - revolution. There's not much difference is there?
> > > Evolution is every bit as much religion as, Christianity, Judaism,
> > > Hinduism, et al. etc. etc. Atheists may ask where I draw this conclusion
> > > from
> > > because surely evolution is science. Well I hate to rain on your parade
> > > but it is not.
>
> > > Science has certain prerequisites before anything can be determined to be
> > > a science. Namely that it is OBSERVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, and REPEATABLE.
>
> > See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
> NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
> Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
> the hell can you dispute that?
Your wisdom is overwhelming. Your words carry more weight and scientific
credibility than any observation. Or not.
> Save yourself a lame rebuttal by at least
> calling it "the THEORY of evolution" I do not claim evolution is NOT true,
> just that's it's not true SCIENCE. Big difference.
Evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution is a fact by any common
definition of the word and there has been put forward a number of different
theories to explain the mechanisms. The latest would be PE. If you care you
can look up http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
> > > Evolution meets none of theses criteria. Moreover, evolution doesn't even
> > >meet the criteria for a HYPOTHESIS. According to the Oxford concise
> > >dictionary a hypothesis is: a presupposition that can be supported by known
> > >facts.
>
> > > Considering that evolution FAILS to meet the criteria set forth by the
> > > definition of science, quite simply put, there are no facts from which to
> > > support it as even an hypothesis.
>
> > > So with all remotely scientific probability removed, one can only
> > > conclude
> > > that the only thing remaining to support the THEORY of evolution, is the
> > > BELIEF in evolution. Isn't BELIEF what the worlds religions cling too?
>
> > You should probably look up the definition of religion in that Oxford
> > concise
> > dictionary of yours.
>
> Well I did look it up to humour you. According to Oxford concise dictionary
> 1995 edition, the fifth definition for religion is: " a thing that one is
> devoted to".
Which is a very loose definition. You are of course free to use that
definition if it pleases your closed mind.
> Atheism inherently has to have devotion to the theory of
> evolution, otherwise atheists would have no choice but to BE theist.
Once again, evolution is not necessarily a part of atheism.
> I
> suggest to you that you BUY a dictionary so that you may learn the terms from
> whence your limited understanding of the english language came.
Am I to understand that your understanding is unlimited? Your ego certainly
seems to be infinite.
> Calling
> evolution a religion (in the typical sense) was using a little poetic
> licence.
IOW, you lied.
> I should have phrased it more aptly for YOU in LAYMAN'S terms.
Ah, so you mean that you used the proper scientific terms? Which was it -
poetry or science? Bad poetry or bad science - take your pick.
> I
> thought that most readers could ascertain that, but apparently
> you..........(ahh screw it....flame thrower not needed)
>
> > > The only difference between the religions of, for example "Christianity
> > > and
> > > Evolution" is that the two factions have a different God.
>
> > > What? We have a God you atheists ask? Yes you do. Your god is what all
> > > evolution, and the creation of the universe hinges upon. TIME, and time
> > > alone.
> > > Take away that all important factor of time and your world ceases to be.
> > > No time, no evolution, no you.
> >
> > You are not making any sense...
> >
>
> Sense is something which not all people can grasp.
I can see that.
> I myself would never
> find that Einstein's theory of relativity would make all that much SENSE to
> me, however, that does not mean that there is no sense to his equation. Just
> as my supposition does not make sense to you, does not mean that there is no
> intrinsic sense to it. For YOUR benefit I will rephrase it. You simply
> cannot comprehend it. Plain enough for you?
OK, I will try to make sense of your ramblings. Correct me if I'm wrong (as if
you wouldn't):
"No time, no evolution, no you."
"No time" can be interpreted as if the the universe in general and the earth
in particular are not as old as scientists have estimated. This, in turn,
would imply that you are a young earth creationist. Again, if you care, you
can look up http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
"No evolution" is a direct consequence of "No time". Evolution needs time to
produce the variety of species we see today. Take away time and there will be
no evolution.
"No you" is still a bit vague. Even if evolution is not true we are still
here. Does this mean that you, who apparently does not believe in evolution,
does not exist?
>
> Reply if you wish. I think I might like waging a war of words with you
> through this thread. I dont even need my flame thrower to burn you to a
> crisp. roflmao :P
IOW, you are not interested in a serious debate. I wonder why? Can it be that
you don't know what you're talking about?
>
> James Jinks
<snip sig>
/Magnus
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Actually, "scientists" of that day tried to convince Christopher
: Columbus that he was wrong in thinking that the spherical earth was
: only two thousand miles in circumference.
: They were completely right.
: No one could possibly have known about that huge chunk of land in
: the way.
They would've had a clue if they'd asked the Icelanders.
--
****************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
- Hippocrates of Cos
****************************************************************
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus
: > that the world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure
: > did!
: Absolutely and totally wrong. The great minds of that period were
: convinced the world was round. They simply disagreed with Columbus's
: calculations of it's size, believing it to be far larger than Columbus's
: estimate so that he would surely run out of food and water. And you
: know what? They were right. He didn't have enough food and water to
: make it to China.
One has to be charitable -- Jimi learned history from Bugs Bunny cartoons.
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
>David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
>: Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: > Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus
>: > that the world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure
>: > did!
>: Absolutely and totally wrong. The great minds of that period were
>: convinced the world was round. They simply disagreed with Columbus's
>: calculations of it's size, believing it to be far larger than Columbus's
>: estimate so that he would surely run out of food and water. And you
>: know what? They were right. He didn't have enough food and water to
>: make it to China.
>One has to be charitable -- Jimi learned history from Bugs Bunny cartoons.
You might very well be correct. The misinformation/disinformation of
the popular media has never been greater. The underlying theme in most
movies nowadays is that career professionals in general and scientists
in particular are almost always wrong, incompetent, weak or downright
evil wheras our beloved hero, acting on his "gut feelings" alone saves
the world singlehandedly. Not only is no credit given to hardwork, all
hardworking individuals are portrayed as obstacles in our hero's way.
On top of that, the recent breed of TV shows pretending to be
scientific only promote pseudoscience. No wonder people like "Jimi"
have come to believe that civilization has been advancing _in spite
of_ science and scientists.
safa...@shaw.wave.xyz
> "bob" <b...@eac.daily> wrote:
[...]
>> IOW, evolution does not and has never tried to explain how life began, let alone
>> how the universe started. If indeed, it had a start.
> Well then I shall reiterate it for you.
>
> In the most literal sense of the WORD evolution I have little choice but to
>concur with you. Evolution means exactly what the name implies. Touche. But
>evolution is: (as being taught in our public schools today)
Nope. What follows is your strawman version.
> A consequence of one hell of a lot of very dense Hydrogen
Bzzt. Wrong..
>that led too the
>"Big Bang" theory
Bzzt. Wrong. Different beasts.
>which in turn formed our planet. On our planet eons ago,
>chemicals, (by pure chance)
Bzzt. Wrong. Strawman. Chemicals, organic or not, do not combine "by
pure chance". Dupont does not invest on pure chance - nor does nature.
>formed to make amino acids, (by pure chance)
Bzzt. Wrong. Strawman.
>of which in turn formed proteins,(by pure chance)
Bzzt. Wrong. Strawman.
>which make up deoxyribonucleic
>acid (D.N.A.). The basis of life as we know it. Which the very first single
>celled organim was blessed with, and evolution (to use your
>defintion)proceeded from that point onwards. I wish I had those kind of odds
>winning the lottery LoL.
>
> So by the literal interpretation of evolution I stand corrected. Something I
>have never seen anyone do here. (admit they were wrong)
You don't give us a chance to be wrong. There are only so many stupid
stupid things to say..
[...]
G L 'Bonz' Newman
>Posted to talk.origins for more comments
>
>On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 19:57:02 GMT, Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>>
>> Sure I may go follow that link to see what's there, but that does not
>>NEGATE the fact that evolution is neither: Observable, Demonstrable, or
>>Repeatable, which are, by very essence, the prerequisites for science. How
>>the hell can you dispute that? Save yourself a lame rebuttal by at least
>>calling it "the THEORY of evolution" I do not claim evolution is NOT true,
>>just that's it's not true SCIENCE. Big difference.
Evolution IS observable, demonstrable, and repeatable. t is an
observation.
You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. They are
two different things.
Music is something you listen to. Theory of music is something you
study. The theory is a set of conjectures and explanations.
Evolution is an observation -- 'fact'. The theory of evolution is a
set of conjectures and explanations ABOUT evolution.
-- Bonz
PLEASE revove THE OBVIOUS from my address to reply by Email.
Brian Voth
[Test module B43 - Neural dispersion]
> > Mosquitos in Central America that carries malaria. We used DDT to kill
> >them off earlier in the century. Now, they're immuned to it. There immune
> >systems
> >devoloped an immunity to it. Evolution.
>
> Didn't do the cats any good, they still cant swing from the trees very good
> LOL !
>
> Ed...................(Oldguyteck) †
[Rating - 100%]
[Comments - Conversation topic loosely followed but response is
complete nonsense. Successful test.]
Brian Voth
Paul G. Wenthold
>
> David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> : Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> : > Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus
> : > that the world ***WAS*** "flat". The great minds of that period sure
> : > did!
>
> : Absolutely and totally wrong. The great minds of that period were
> : convinced the world was round. They simply disagreed with Columbus's
> : calculations of it's size, believing it to be far larger than Columbus's
> : estimate so that he would surely run out of food and water. And you
> : know what? They were right. He didn't have enough food and water to
> : make it to China.
>
> One has to be charitable -- Jimi learned history from Bugs Bunny cartoons.
>
"The earth, she is a-round, like-a my head!"
BAM!
"She is flat like your head."
And now for some rockin' BB music:
Oh, Columbus is the discoverer of America
As he sails the seas in 1492
And the good queen Isabella
Gave her jewels to her fella
So Columbus could sail 'cross the ocean blue
Next thing you will know, he will be talking about
how a rabbit carried George Washington across the
Delaware in his motorboat.
paul
--
Invention is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% inspiration,
and 2% butterscotch ripple --- Willie Wonka
Al Klein
wrote:
> Umm, yes. I gave you a list of fossil records that show how we evolved
>from our ancesters. And now, a cat giving birth to a dog is not evolution.
>Evolution would be if the cat had an extra limb (that came in good use)
>or a more effective type of eye or even just having stronger legs which
>makes it run faster from preditors. That's evolution.
How about the cats with 6 toes? Or the ones with 2 uterii?
Or is that just god creating again? :)
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
> Um, sorry, wrong you are. Man can gentically alter species. Man can also
>cross breed species through natural means. That however, is not evolution.
>And I sure would like to see an animal over the generations transform itself
>into another.
Dawn horse into (eventually) modern horse.
Next request?
Al Klein
>> My calling evolution a religion was tongue in cheek. The point that you failed
>to see it that evolution remains a theory.
The change in allele frequencies in populations over time is not, and
has never been, "a theory". It was an observation, and it was labeled
"evolution". There are theories (plural) regarding it, called
theories of evolution. THEY remain, and always will remain, theories.
Al Klein
>In article <35a189e0.0@bigdog>,
> "bob" <b...@eac.daily> wrote:
>> Jimi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> <6np9as$uk5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > Due to the fact that, in the absence of a creator, our universe just happens
>> >to be. It is quite apparent that evolution is the only alternative for human
>> >existence. So I may correctly infer that atheists are evolutionists.
>> Taking your first sentence refering to "....a creator", you seem to be
>> saying in the second sentence that evolution replaces a creator, at least as
>> far as atheists are concerned, based on your third sentence. So you are
>> claiming that evolution tries to explain the beginnings of life. You are
>> totally wrong. Evolution explains change, and in order for there to be
>> change, there has to be something to change FROM. Catching the drift? IOW,
>> evolution does not and has never tried to explain how life began, let alone
>> how the universe started. If indeed, it had a start.
> Well then I shall reiterate it for you.
> In the most literal sense of the WORD evolution I have little choice but to
>concur with you. Evolution means exactly what the name implies. Touche. But
>evolution is: (as being taught in our public schools today)
> A consequence of one hell of a lot of very dense Hydrogen that led too the
>"Big Bang" theory which in turn formed our planet. On our planet eons ago,
>chemicals, (by pure chance) formed to make amino acids, (by pure chance) of
>which in turn formed proteins,(by pure chance) which make up deoxyribonucleic
>acid (D.N.A.). The basis of life as we know it. Which the very first single
>celled organim was blessed with, and evolution (to use your
>defintion)proceeded from that point onwards.
Cite a single textbook that teaches all this together as "evolution".
Al Klein
>In article <35A08F...@telusplanet.net>,
>Sure there is similarity in many living
>creatures as well as plant life. Take dogs for example. They are all in the
>same family, they share similar D.N.A., the sperm from one breed can
>fertilize the egg from another. But that does not mean that all the varieties
>of dogs we have today evolved from one another.
Of course not. They were each evolved from other breeds, or from a
common ancestor.
>Yes indeed we do find new species in the fossil record all
>the time. In fact we find new species that are still living today. What we
>have not found yet is the progression of fossils which clearly demonstrates
>the "progression" of one species to another.
Nor will we, since none but a minuscule few corpses ever become
fossilized.
> Example: Birds are thought to be
>the decendants of dinosaurs. Well where are the fossils of the
>tranformational intermediate creatures? Simply put we (mankind)have not found
>any yet. We have many fossils of both species, so where are the
>intermediates?
We have, unless you demand a completely feathered complete dinosaur.
>On the subject of DNA, I am glad you raised that issue. DNA can only be
>created BY DNA.
False assumption.
>So where did that first double helix come from?
Most likely from some RNA.
Al Klein
>> In light of you giving these two examples I am going to use one of
>> your quotes:"not one of you has a clue, not one of you has
>> any imagination at all, not one of you has an original thought in your
>> pea-brain"
> Are you going to just criticize? Or do you plan to offer something
>subjective?
Since those were YOUR words, are you going to just criticize? Or do
you plan to offer something subjective?
Al Klein
>> So even if evolution doesn't meet these "criteria", why does that make
>> it a religion. Why doesn't it make it a theory, or a view point or a
>> form of government for that matter. I don't see your conection between
>> it not being an exact science so it being a religion. Please clarify
>> your cause and effect here. By reading your post, I guess religion can't
>> be considered any form of science either. Since it does not meet any
>> "criteria". It doesn't even meet the definition of a hypothesis, since
>> there are no real facts to back it up.
> Oxford concise dictionary 1995 Religion: 5. a thing that one is devoted to.
Try using definition #1 on usenet.
Al Klein
>> Many atheists as well as many theists would ask this because I know a
>> great number of religious people who have no problem with evolution
>> whatsoever. Tell me, are you a flat earther too?
> Did not "science" of the day try to convince Christopher Columbus that the
>world ***WAS*** "flat".
No, this is just a common modern misconception. ALL the educated
people of the day knew that the earth was round. And some of the
uneducated ones knew it as well, even if they didn't fully accept it.
Zak Ennayo
Al Klein wrote in message <35ae8d1a...@newshost.li.net>...
>Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Evolution is a process which involves many generations, not just one or two.
Of course, useless and ineffective progeny will come into existence along
with the useful and effective progeny. Those which are ineffective may not
succeed to further generations while those that do may. A cat with five
legs is an example of a random mutation. It may be effective or ineffective
depending on a myriad of genetic and environmental conditions. This is part
of the driving force of evolution.
BTW: What's the atheistic explanation for five-legged cats and other such
things? Do NOT respond with "IT'S GOD'S WILL", or I'll start an Inquisition
of my own.
maff91
There is no atheistic explanation. Only a Scientific one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
>things? Do NOT respond with "IT'S GOD'S WILL", or I'll start an Inquisition
>of my own.
Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsterstran.shtml
*****************************************************
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
maff91
If you learn some Science then you'll be able write better poetry.
>
>paul
maff91
Sorry about the last post. I thought you were a Fundie!
Riley M. Sinder
[[The evolutionists' replies have been published--somewhere.
And in the evolutionists' replies, you can see the intensity
of the evolutionists' superstition--that some idiot thinks
that God is supernatural calls for a lawsuit--and that the eardrums
or minds of young children can be harmed by the mumbled sounds
of "God," "Lord," or "Amen"--that, that, that.
But the empirical truth is: The Gdo of Genesis is no more
supernatural than Santa Claus. And that some idiot legislator thought
that God was supernatural--what measurable effect do you think
THAT has?]]
(Dick) wrote:
> Today, I sat down to read the newspaper, and as is my habit
> I turned to the letters to the editor for a good laugh. And I
> saw what looked suspiciously like what I see here, spammed to
> many many different newsgroups. Someone rattling on about
> how the secular courts have banned prayer. And on and on.
> And then I looked at the signature, sure enough. There it was.
> Rednblu.
> Arrgh!. Makes me want to quit reading that paper.
Craig Pennington wrote:
> Which paper?
(Dick) wrote:
> Sorry, I was still so shook up about it that I forgot to say,
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wednesday, May 27th, 1998.
> I will try to grab it today.
(Micheal Keane) wrote:
> I was pretty surprised when I saw it myself. I was reading
> the letter and thinking "This is pretty familiar
> sounding" and there it was...
Tim DeLaney wrote:
> You're a good writer. I strongly urge you to
> write a reply to that
> letter. Most newspapers are quite happy to
> publish good letters, at
> least that's what the opinion
> editor of our local paper tells
> me.
(Dick) wrote:
> I sent a letter in on Thursday, haven't heard from them.
Commensurable Man wrote:
> The evolutionists finally got their letter published.
> The reply can be viewed at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6624/PI_LetterToTheEditor_980527.html
The evolutionists truly are tenacious in their belief
that the supernatural element threatens small children.
But even this one of the evolutionists' superstitions will die.
For in the momentous year of 2000 when Gdo the Creator appears in the
sky, the Creationists will reject Gdo--because this Gdo that appears
in the sky is merely another manifestation of the physical universe--
which the Creationists believe to be some Anti-Christ, Anti-Muon,
or other Anti-Matter particulate.
On the other hand, the evolutionists
will become the only true believers--because the
evolutionists then as now believe
that the physical universe is the one and
only infallible source of evidence. Hence, the evolutionists
will accept as truth any poor imitiation of a Gdo that takes
physical form.
--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com