atheist Dawkins review of 18 April "Expelled" movie
david ford
> http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
> The alleged association between Darwinism and
> Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it
> is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe
> that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.
Maser: "Darwin, one of Hitler's 'teachers'"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143173595.248723.143420%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Hitler was
> ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to
> have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding
> of Darwin
an exercise: parallels between 1871 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> (along with his very ungarbled understanding
> of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther,
Luther's and Hitler's antis- were very different
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149000825.650983.94540%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> and of his own
> never-renounced Roman Catholic religion)
gullible believe atheist liar Hitler's lie that he a Xtian; 1934
Feuchtwanger
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/a270a8a3545ad0cb?dmode=source&hl=en
Rosenberg: "our Leader's viewpoint": "catholic church...must
disappear from the life of our people"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/e43c9591fa69d57e?hl=en&
atheist Hitler fooled German Evangelical Church
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/14a73c6f20de1ad8?hl=en&
1939 Goebbels: "The Fuhrer is... completely anti-Christian."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145975885.494352.40950%40g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> but it is
> hardly Darwin's fault if he did.
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
> ==
> Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing
> to do with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary
> precursor of Darwinian evolution) is an interesting and
> unsolved mystery, one that scientists are actively
> working on.
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
> ==
> He chose just one (it would have taken too long to
> explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of
> properties such a theory must have. He happened to
> choose the theory proposed by the Scottish chemist
> Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded
> by a strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns
> on the surfaces of crystals in inorganic clays.
Control - f/ "find" for: clay
Batch of replies to John Wilkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-389cg9F5lbshpU1%40individual.net
> ==
> My point here was that design can never be an
> ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.
What was responsible for the origination of the 2 lines worth of
letter sequences above?
(Intelligence/ mind?)
> ==
> Evolution by natural selection is the only known
> process whereby organized complexity can ultimately
> come into being.
To what do you ascribe the origination of the first biological
lifeform?
(The operation of "evolution by natural selection"?)
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Richo
> > Dawkins, Richard. 23 March 2008. "Lying for Jesus?"
> > The alleged association between Darwinism and
> > Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it
> > is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe
> > that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.
>
Very good article thanks for the link.
<lies deleted>
Cheers, Mark.
--------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson. m.richardson61 AT gmail.com
Member of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
--------------------------------------------------
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
are, I can't believe they can be anything but ID.'"
the human hearing system: masterpiece that appears to be engineer(s)
workproduct
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-320g33F3giod4U1%40individual.net
"While this can seem compelling and perhaps true, it's unfortunately
rather subjective."
Do you agree with Dawkins that life has [Dawkins]"an overwhelming
illusion of 'design.'"?
2006 Dawkins: life has "an overwhelming illusion of 'design.'"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172243872.240034.24900%408g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
2005 Dawkins: "the illusion of design"; "things that look designed
(like birds"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1172240834.278579.111180%40q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Acoustic Engineers and Bird Alarm Calls
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Do you think that the nanotools in [Davies]"the intricate machine we
call the living cell" have the appearance of being the product of
intelligence/ mind?
1999 Paul Davies on nanotools in "the intricate machine we call the
living cell"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271934.2af28f31%40posting.google.com
Do you agree with Einstein that physics looks like it was designed?
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
"I'm looking for something along the lines of 'If ID is correct, then
attribute A should have feature X or feature Y.'"
Maybe such is in
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
"'If whales were once land animals we can expect that their hind
quarters should be morphologically similar to legs and they may be
sometimes born with deformed legs' both of which turn out to be true"
What's true? (that some whales are born with legs? that there were
whales that walked on land?)
1930s Dewar (a creationist), Darwin, and bears
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.960901020131.26306A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
"just a prediction would be a great place to start"
ID doesn't make predictions.
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
'Evolutionary theory' doesn't make predictions.
ReMine (a creationist), and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of
the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
time"
Did the organisms that originated during the Cambrian explosion
originate in a:
rapid manner?
gradual manner?
"Gould chose to use language theists could easily understand and
relate to"
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Gould and Eldredge. 1972. "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to
Phyletic
Gradualism," first published in _Models in Paleobiology_, T.J.M.
Schopf,
ed. Reprinted in Eldredge's _Time Frames: The Rethinking of
Darwinian
Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria_ (1985), 197, 199:
Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of
transitional series remains as our persistent bugbear.
From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or an Agassiz to
the jibes of modern cranks and fundamentalists, it has
stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist arguments: 'For
evolution to be true, there had to be thousands, millions
of transitional forms making an unbroken chain' (Anon.,
1967--from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet).
Stanley, Steven M. 1981. _The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils,
Genes, and the Origin of Species_, 222pp. On 165:
There is no doubt that the new punctuational movement
will bring joy to the hearts of creationists-- those who
claim species to be discrete entities that a divine being
brought separately to life and placed upon the earth.
The fossil record, in offering the punctuational message
that distinctive forms somehow appear suddenly and,
once established, change slowly, would appear to be
playing into the creationists' hands.
"'evolution' isn't an experiment, it's a scientific theory (multiple,
actually)"
What are the names of 4 of those multiple theories?
"'Darwin theorized that millions of in-between-forms of animal fossils
should be found, and they never have.'
-- Give me the whole quote with context, please."
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
"the changes we witness are all that is plausibly necessary for the
changes we see between, for instance, the common ancestral population
of humans and chimps to diverge (multiverge?) into what we see today"
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Agree with J. Huxley's "no"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com
"vestigial organs"
Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Mayr and G. Nelson & N. Platnick on biogeography
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990719222253.1868077A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
"people who actually understand the immune system or blood clotting
pointed out their knowledge to Behe"
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
"Arguments from authority are certainly fallacious"
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
"Thinking evolution is true does not lead to nihilism or Nazis"
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
"basing one's belief on a God which is contradicted by the evidence"
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
"Ultimately, the Constitution of various states sets up the methods by
which curriculums are taught and derived, which usually means local
school board elections."
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
"'survival of the fittest' is a misleading term"
Darwin in the 6th edition of _Origin_ on [Darwin]"survival of the
fittest" and the [Darwin]"struggle for life"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132161340.121874.63970%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"Abiogenesis is not the hypothesis that life arises from a pile of
dirt"
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
"There are observed cases where entropy does not increase on subset of
an open system or in fact decreases spontaneously"
What are 2 such cases?
Mark K. Bilbo
5797cf78-db29-4a2a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> more of an argument from incredulity
Pretty much sums your posts up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.”
- H. L. Mencken
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> are... assigning 'horses and tigers and things' to
> Rosen when it was in fact Conrad Waddington, and
> with a different meaning.
Rosen (1978), 372, as well as Rosen & Buth (1980), 307, quoted that
Waddington (1967), 14 phrase, and left out a comma in the process.
Do you disagree with any of the Waddington below?
Waddington, C.H., of the Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh,
Scotland, in
Moorhead, Paul S. and Martin M. Kaplan, eds. 1967. _Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution: A
Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology: April
25 and 26, 1966: The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph Number 5_
(Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press), 136+pp, 13-14.
I am a believer that some of the basic statements of
neo-Darwinism are vacuous; and I think there is a
confusion here, possibly, about whether we are
talking about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Dr.
Medawar mentioned this phrase, 'the survival of the
fittest,' and it is a very elementary, old-fashioned,
long outdated concept; but, of course, this is what
Darwin was talking about. By 'fittest,' he meant best
able to carry out the functions of life, best adapted
to some environmental situation and some way of
life. By a fit horse, he meant a horse that could
gallop fastest and escape best from wolves, or
whatever it might be. That is a real theory which is
perfectly capable of refutation.
What has happened to it since, in the process of
turning this into a lot of mathematics, is that 'fitness'
has been redefined, leaving out anything to do with
way of life, simply in terms of leaving offspring. So
the theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the
evolution of the changing of the population in
respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to
anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the
mathematical theory of neo-Darwinism. It is
smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his
mind that the animals that leave the largest number
of offspring are going to be those best adapted also
for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this
sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is
explicit in the theory is that they will leave more
offspring.
There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous
statement: Natural selection is that some things
leave more offspring than others; and you ask,
which leave more offspring than others; and it is
those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing
more to it than that.
The whole real guts of evolution-- which is, how do
you come to have horses and tigers, and things-- is
outside the mathematical theory. So when people
say that a thing is vacuous, I think they may be
thinking of this part of it, this type of statement. The
sheer mathematical statement is largely vacuous.
The actual way this is applied, not by the
mathematical theorists but by the biologists working
with the subject, is not vacuous at all. [there
immediately follows remarks by Alex Fraser]
> As for the essay you listed it was quite long and had
> a large number of references. It also contained some
> shoddy quoting of creationist mainstays, the most
> heinous (from the ones I decided to look into) being
> the 'horses and tigers and things' being attributed to
> Rosen when it was in fact Conrad Waddington, used
> in a completely different context.
You refer to:
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Along similar lines, in "Empirical Evolutionary Research Versus
Neo-Darwinian Speculation" _Systematic Zoology_ 29: 300-308 (1980),
Donn
E. Rosen (New York City's American Museum of Natural History, Dept of
Ichthyology) and Donald G. Buth (Los Angeles's U. of California, Dept
of
Biology) observe that "a half-century of neo-Darwinism" has
"contributed
no evidence about how there came to be 'horses and tigers and
things.'"
The quote is on page 307, in the "Conclusion" section, the last word
of that section being "taxa."
What are more instances of what you consider "shoddy quoting" in that
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection?
///////////////////////////////////
Donn Rosen was/is with the Department of Ichthyology at New York
City's
The American Museum of Natural History. In a 1978 _Systematic
Zoology_
book review, Rosen announced his intention to "consider what seems to
me
the demise of" the theory of natural selection. He continued by
saying
the theory "is so entrenched in the fabric of evolutionary biology
that
its axiomatic nature has been virtually overlooked." By "axiomatic
nature," Rosen refers to the ability of "Darwinian selection theory"
to
"explain everything, and therefore, nothing."
I personally find uninteresting Rosen's claim that the theory of
natural
selection is tautological. I do, however, find interesting his
agreeing
with me that, in his words, "natural selection theory fails to explain
the origin of evolutionary novelties." Rosen also thinks the phrase
"'natural selection'" ought be "stripped from our technical
vocabulary,"
and the theory "sen[t]... off to join the ether, phlogiston, and
noxious
vapors."
Here's some more from Rosen's essay:
"Remarking on the current criticism of evolutionary theory, he
[Stansfield] wrote: "This is a healthy situation, for [the
critics]
{Rosen's bracket} bring to light many of the unresolved
problems
that are a source of embarrassment to evolutionists.
Scientists,
perhaps more than other professionals, should try to remain
unbiased; .... this demands that they display for public
consumption not just the strengths and successes of their
theories,
but also the weaknesses and failures of same [sic] .... any
profession that does not supply its own criticism and
iconoclasm
will find that someone else will do the job, and usually in a
way
it does not like." A warning to be heeded, for pointed and
penetrating criticism of the synthetic theory and its
practitioners
by a philosopher (Bethell, 1976) and a lawyer (Macbeth, 1971)
has
opened a door to a general but unwarranted denunciation of all
evolutionists--in the spirit of Thompson's (1958) and
Lewontin's
(1972) accusations quoted at the outset."
Bethell, Tom. "Darwin's mistake" _Harper's_ (Feb 1976), 70-5.
Lewontin, R.C. Book review "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection"
_Nature_ 236: 181-2 (1972).
Macbeth, Norman. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason_ (1971).
Rosen, Donn. Book review "Darwin's Demon" _Systematic Zoology_
27: 370-3 (1978).
Stansfield, W.D. _The Science of Evolution_ (1977).
Thompson, W.R. Introduction to Darwin's _Origin_ (1958).
1967 Macbeth calls for "a full disclosure"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405231903.3eb81283%40posting.google.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Marx as an antisemite"
"On the subject of religion, David also brings up Marx and
antisemitism, which is frankly hilarious given the implication that it
has anything to do with racism. Marx was a member of a Jewish family
and his primary essay on Jews, 'On the Jewish Question' (this is much
before the Nazis' version), deals with the social stereotypes of
Jewish activity (money-grubbing, capitalistic) and in fact is a
defense of Jews, arguing that they should not be repressed and
converted, as advocated by Bauer. I think this further illustrates
the level of research put into these writings - just enough to make
the point David wants to, and no further, often resulting in misguided
arguments and outright falsehoods. It reminds me again of the type of
research and argument-forming process of lawyers."
"his primary essay on Jews, 'On the Jewish Question'... in fact is a
defense of Jews"
LOL.
Prager, Dennis and Joseph Telushkin. 1983. _Why the Jews?: The
Reason for Antisemitism_ (NY: Simon & Schuster), 238pp. On 137-9 in
the chapter "Leftist Antisemitism":
....one of Marx's first major essays was _On the
Jewish Question_. Marx ostensibly wrote the piece
as a response to philosopher Bruno Bauer's article,
"The Jewish Question," in which Bauer virulently
attacked the Jews and Judaism, and argued against
emancipation for the Jews until they abandon their
"exclusive religion, morality and customs."2
Marx, in his response, though critical of some of
Bauer's conclusions, did not criticize Bauer's
antisemitism. Indeed, he far outdid Bauer in
antisemitic vituperation. He criticized Bauer for
primarily attacking religious Jews, when all who
identify as Jews should be attacked: "Not only in the
Pentateuch [Torah] and in the Talmud, but also in
present-day society we find the essence of the
modern Jew."3 As historian Robert Wistrich notes,
"Marx's hatred was therefore focused not [only]
against Bruno Bauer's 'Sabbath-Jew' but rather
against contemporary Jewry."4
_On the Jewish Question_ is filled with a hatred of
Jews and Judaism so extreme that at times it sinks
to Nazi-like Jew-hatred: "What is the secular cult of
the Jew? _Haggling_. What is his secular god?
_Money_. Well then! Emancipation from _haggling_
and _money_, from practical, real Judaism would be
the self-emancipation of our time...."5 "Money is the
jealous God of Israel, beside which no other God
may stand."6
In the closing passages of _On the Jewish
Question_, Marx goes so far as to identify the
emancipation of humanity with the abolition of
Judaism.7
The blatant antisemitism of _On the Jewish
Question_ has always proved an embarrassment to
Jewish socialists who have retained a Jewish
identity. For over a hundred years after its writing,
Jewish socialists, who translated almost all of
Marx's writings into Yiddish and Hebrew, refrained
from translating Marx's only essay devoted
exclusively to the Jewish question.
Others, however, have been only too pleased to
translate and learn from Marx's Jew-hating essay. In
1963, for example, the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences published _Judaism Without
Embellishment_ by Trofim K. Kichko, who liberally
quoted from _On the Jewish Question_. The book
was so antisemitic that international protests forced
the Soviet government to withdraw it from
circulation. Adolf Hitler, too, claimed to have learned
from Marx's essay: "It is quite enough that the
scientific knowledge of the danger of Judaism is
gradually deepened and that every individual on the
basis of this knowledge begins to eliminate the Jew
within himself, and I am very much afraid that this
beautiful thought originates from none other than a
Jew."8
Nor was the Jew-hatred in _On the Jewish
Question_ an exception to Marx's views on the
Jews. Marx's subsequent writings about Jews, even
working-class Jews, remained uniformly
contemptuous. For example, ....
Marx, in
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O'Hair
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Luther's and Hitler's antis- were very different
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149000825.650983.94540%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Extracts, with fuller text below:
The atheist and the agnostic eliminate the idea of a
Creator, and reduce everything to the action of
atoms and forces supposed to be practically and
inherently omnipotent. They thus make of these
atoms and forces a supreme God, attributing to
them the same powers assigned by the theist to the
Creator.
==
It is further evident that, should evolutionists be
driven by natural facts to admit the sudden
apparition of organic forms rather than their gradual
development, there may be no apparent difference,
as to matter of fact, between such sudden
apparition and creation, so that science may
become absolutely silent on the question.
Palaeontology has indeed tended to bring the
matter into this position, as Barrande and others
have well shown. The writer has elsewhere
adduced the advent of the Cambrian trilobites, of
the Silurian cephalopods, of the Devonian fishes, of
the Carboniferous batrachians, land snails and
myriapods, of the marsupial mammals of the
Mesozoic and the placental mammals of the
Eocene, and of the Palaeozoic and modern floras,
as illustrations of the sudden swarming in of forms
of life over the world, in a manner indicating flows
and ebbs of the creative action, inconsistent with
Darwinian uniformity, and perhaps unfavorable to
any form of evolution ordinarily held.*
[*: In England, Davidson, Jeffreys, Williamson,
Carruthers, and other eminent naturalists have
strongly insisted on the tendency of
palaeontological facts to prove permanence of type
and intermittent introduction of new forms, as
distinguished from descent with gradual
modification.]
==
In like manner the veteran German physiologist
Virchow, in an able address before the Assembly of
German Naturalists at Munich,{double dagger}
[double dagger: _On the Liberty of Science_
(1877).]
taking the spontaneous generation of organisms
and the descent of man from apelike ancestors as
test questions, argues in the most conclusive
manner that neither can be held as a result of
scientific investigation, but that both must be
regarded as problems as yet unsolved.
But in the face of such opinions as these, one is
struck with the fact that eminent men of science in
England and America assert that science demands
belief in the theory of evolution, and this in its
atheistic as well as its theistic phase. When,
however, reasons are asked for this demand, those
who make it are themselves obliged to admit the
absence of a scientific basis for the doctrine.
==
in his [Tyndall's] capacity of physicist he has by rigid
experiments in his laboratory done as much as any
man living to convince us that science knows no
possibility of producing the phenomena of life from
dead matter.
The man who in a popular address or in a text-book
introduces the "descent of species" as a proved
result of science, to be used in framing
classifications and in constructing theories, is
leaving the firm ground of nature and taking up a
position which exposes him to the suspicion of
being a dupe or a charlatan.*
[*: Huxley, in the preface to the _Manual of the
Anatomy of the Invertebrated Animals_ (1878), has
taken this ground. He says: "I have abstained from
discussing questions of aetiology, not because I
underestimate their importance, or am insensible to
the interest of the great problem of evolution, but
because, in my mind, the growing tendency to mix
up aetiological speculations with morphological
generalizations will, if unchecked, throw biology into
confusion."]
He is uttering counterfeits of nature's currency. It
should not be left to theologians to expose him, for it
is as much the interest of the honest worker in
science to do this as it is that of the banker or
merchant to expose the impostor who has forged
another's signature. In the true interests of science
one is called on to follow the weighty advice of
Virchow: "Whoever speaks or writes for the public
ought, in my opinion, doubly to examine just now
how much of that which he says is objective truth.
He ought to try as much as possible to have all
inductive extensions which he makes, all
conclusions arrived at by the laws of analogy,
however probable they may seem, printed in small
type under the general text, and to put into the latter
only that which is objective truth."
==
To render such evils impossible, there must be a
more general and truthful teaching of science. It is
a great mistake here to suppose that a little
knowledge is dangerous; every grain of pure truth is
precious, and will bear precious fruit. The danger
lies in misusing the little knowledge for purposes
which it can not serve; and this is most likely to take
place when facts are not known at all, or imperfectly
comprehended, or so taught as to cause a part of
the truth to be taken for the whole. Let the
structures of animals and plants in some of their
more prominent forms be well known, along with
their history in geological time, and the attempt to
explain their origin by any crude and simple
hypotheses like those now current will become
unreal as a dream.
==
The vague and indefinite application of the term
evolution to all these modes of development and to
their innumerable and complicated causes and
determinations has perhaps more than anything
else tended to disgust men of common sense with
this protean and intangible philosophy, and to
divorce it more and more from the alliance of rigid
science. On the other hand, its vague and shadowy
character, and the pretension to explain all things by
one dominant idea have great charms for the
unwary and enthusiastic crowd, and it gives a cheap
and easy way of appearing learned and
philosophical, which has a peculiar attraction for an
age characterized by a superficial and confused
expansion of thought and discussion, and by an
intense craving for the exciting and sensational.
These elements of the thought of the age must for
some time longer give currency to the abundant
coinage of a mint which so easily converts the base
metal of speculation into the semblance of scientific
conclusions.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
For further reading
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Feynman on giving all the information
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1993 Michael Ruse essay mentioned herein;
"for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of secular
religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
T0E good for study of morphogenesis?: Goodwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230503.56fa7a7%40posting.google.com
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin
Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
////////////////////////////////////////////
Fuller text
Dawson, J. William. 1900, in an encyclopedia. On 209-211, the
closing paragraphs of his "Evolution" entry:
The hypotheses of evolution present themselves to the Christian under
two aspects-- the theistic and the atheistic or agnostic, for the two
last are practically the same. The theistic evolutionist holds that
God creates, but that created things may have powers of spontaneous
evolution, under laws whereby they may pass into new and higher
forms. The atheist and the agnostic eliminate the idea of a Creator,
and reduce everything to the action of atoms and forces supposed to be
practically and inherently omnipotent. They thus make of these atoms
and forces a supreme God, attributing to them the same powers assigned
by the theist to the Creator. It is obvious, however, that many
adherents of evolution have no clear perception of the distinction
between these phases, or find it convenient to overlook its existence,
since they often hover in thought between the one and the other, or
occupy one or the other position indifferently, as the exigencies of
debate may require.
It is also to be observed that either of these phases of evolution may
admit of modifications. One of the most important of these arises
from the distinction between the idea of slow and uniform development
maintained by Darwin and others, and that of sudden or intermittent
evolution advocated by such evolutionists as Mivart and Le Conte.
Viewing the matter in this light, it is evident that neither the
theological idea of creation nor the evolutionist notion, in either of
its phases, can have any close dependence on biological and geological
science, which studies the nature and succession of organic forms
without ascertaining their origin; either hypothesis may, however,
appeal to scientific facts as more or less according with the
consequences which might be expected to follow from the origins
supposed. It is further evident that, should evolutionists be driven
by natural facts to admit the sudden apparition of organic forms
rather than their gradual development, there may be no apparent
difference, as to matter of fact, between such sudden apparition and
creation, so that science may become absolutely silent on the
question.
Palaeontology has indeed tended to bring the matter into this
position, as Barrande and others have well shown. The writer has
elsewhere adduced the advent of the Cambrian trilobites, of the
Silurian cephalopods, of the Devonian fishes, of the Carboniferous
batrachians, land snails and myriapods, of the marsupial mammals of
the Mesozoic and the placental mammals of the Eocene, and of the
Palaeozoic and modern floras, as illustrations of the sudden swarming
in of forms of life over the world, in a manner indicating flows and
ebbs of the creative action, inconsistent with Darwinian uniformity,
and perhaps unfavorable to any form of evolution ordinarily held.*
[*: In England, Davidson, Jeffreys, Williamson, Carruthers, and other
eminent naturalists have strongly insisted on the tendency of
palaeontological facts to prove permanence of type and intermittent
introduction of new forms, as distinguished from descent with gradual
modification.]
This neutral attitude of science has been strongly insisted on by Dr.
Wigand {dagger}
[dagger: Dr. Albert Wigand, _Darwinismus_ (1876-77).] in his
elaborate work _Darwinismus_, in which he holds that this doctrine
does not represent a definite and consistent scientific effort and
result, but merely an "indefinite and confused movement of the mind of
the age," and that science may ultimately prove its most dangerous
foe. In like manner the veteran German physiologist Virchow, in an
able address before the Assembly of German Naturalists at Munich,
{double dagger}
[double dagger: _On the Liberty of Science_ (1877).]
taking the spontaneous generation of organisms and the descent of man
from apelike ancestors as test questions, argues in the most
conclusive manner that neither can be held as a result of scientific
investigation, but that both must be regarded as problems as yet
unsolved.
But in the face of such opinions as these, one is struck with the fact
that eminent men of science in England and America assert that science
demands belief in the theory of evolution, and this in its atheistic
as well as its theistic phase. When, however, reasons are asked for
this demand, those who make it are themselves obliged to admit the
absence of a scientific basis for the doctrine. For example,
reference may be made to the able and elaborate address delivered
before the American Association by its president, Prof. Marsh. He
says: "I need offer no argument for evolution, since to doubt
evolution is to doubt science, and science is only another name for
truth." In the sequel of the address he limits himself to the
evolution of the vertebrate animals, admitting that he knows nothing
of the absolute origin of the first of them, and basing his
conclusions mainly on the succession, in distant times, and often in
distant places, of forms allied to each other, and advancing in the
scale of complexity. Such succession obviously falls far short of
scientific proof of evolution; and other than this no evidence is
offered for the strong assertion above quoted. In the conclusion of
the address he asserts that life may be a form of some other force,
presumably physical force; but admits in the same breath that we are
ignorant of its origin; and finally he makes an appeal, not to facts,
but to faith: "Possibly the great mystery of life may thus be solved;
but whether it be or not, a true faith in science knows no limit to
its search for truth."
Another eminent apostle of evolution, Prof. Tyndall, asserts, in a
public address, that "it is now very generally admitted that the man
of to-day is the child and product of incalculable antecedent time.
His physical and intellectual textures have been woven for him through
phases of history and forms of existence which lead the mind back to
an abysmal past." But, however generally this may be "admitted," it
is nevertheless true that the oldest known men are as truly human in
their structures as those now living, and that no link between them
and lower animals is known. In a previous address he had gone further
back still, and affirmed that in material atoms reside the "promise
and potency of life"; yet in his capacity of physicist he has by rigid
experiments in his laboratory done as much as any man living to
convince us that science knows no possibility of producing the
phenomena of life from dead matter.
The man who in a popular address or in a text-book introduces the
"descent of species" as a proved result of science, to be used in
framing classifications and in constructing theories, is leaving the
firm ground of nature and taking up a position which exposes him to
the suspicion of being a dupe or a charlatan.*
[*: Huxley, in the preface to the _Manual of the Anatomy of the
Invertebrated Animals_ (1878), has taken this ground. He says: "I
have abstained from discussing questions of aetiology, not because I
underestimate their importance, or am insensible to the interest of
the great problem of evolution, but because, in my mind, the growing
tendency to mix up aetiological speculations with morphological
generalizations will, if unchecked, throw biology into confusion."]
He is uttering counterfeits of nature's currency. It should not be
left to theologians to expose him, for it is as much the interest of
the honest worker in science to do this as it is that of the banker or
merchant to expose the impostor who has forged another's signature.
In the true interests of science one is called on to follow the
weighty advice of Virchow: "Whoever speaks or writes for the public
ought, in my opinion, doubly to examine just now how much of that
which he says is objective truth. He ought to try as much as possible
to have all inductive extensions which he makes, all conclusions
arrived at by the laws of analogy, however probable they may seem,
printed in small type under the general text, and to put into the
latter only that which is objective truth." To practice such teaching
may require much self-denial, akin to that which the preacher must
exercise who makes up his mind to forego his own thoughts, and, like
Paul, to know nothing among men but God's truth in its simplicity.
The mischief which may be done to science by an opposite course is
precisely similar to that which is done to religion by sensational
preaching founded on distortions of scriptural truth, or on fragments
of texts taken out of their connection and used as mottoes for streams
of imaginative declamation.
To render such evils impossible, there must be a more general and
truthful teaching of science. It is a great mistake here to suppose
that a little knowledge is dangerous; every grain of pure truth is
precious, and will bear precious fruit. The danger lies in misusing
the little knowledge for purposes which it can not serve; and this is
most likely to take place when facts are not known at all, or
imperfectly comprehended, or so taught as to cause a part of the truth
to be taken for the whole. Let the structures of animals and plants
in some of their more prominent forms be well known, along with their
history in geological time, and the attempt to explain their origin by
any crude and simple hypotheses like those now current will become
unreal as a dream.
It may be useful in conclusion to say a few words on the application
of the doctrine of evolution to other lines of investigation than that
of organic development. Here it is scarcely necessary to remark that
when one speaks of the evolution of the physical universe from
disseminated atoms, of chemical elements from one original substance,
of continents and mountain-chains in geological time, or, on the other
hand, of the arts and languages and history of men, new and diverse
fields are entered, in which the developments which may occur are
altogether different in their nature and dependent on different
causes; in which consequently the term evolution must in each case
have a distinct and peculiar meaning, unless indeed the reader is
prepared to use it to designate any mode of doing anything, in which
case it loses all distinctive significance.
In the case of the physical universe one must assume space and time,
matter and energy, with all their laws and potencies, and has then
before him the question of the possible interactions of these in time,
their possible determination in a given direction, with or without a
planning, creative mind, and in the things developed one has to deal
with the inorganic and the dead, altogether destitute of the plastic
and progressive vital energies of the organic world. Evolution in
this sense is merely the movement of a machine, the original
construction of which no theory of evolution can _per se_ explain.
When, on the other hand, the evolution of human history or human art
is discussed, an entirely different plane is reached. Here a planning
intelligent mind deals with external objects and molds them to its
will. Here also the new factor of genius appears as & sudden
inspiration from time to time, giving at once a great and rapid
impulse. All history shows that in this way, and by great bounds,
advance has been secured, and not by any slow and gradual process of
mere struggle and survival. Here also the subject becomes infinitely
complicated with the varieties of human taste, feeling, and reason,
and with the infinite interaction of interests and opportunities.
The vague and indefinite application of the term evolution to all
these modes of development and to their innumerable and complicated
causes and determinations has perhaps more than anything else tended
to disgust men of common sense with this protean and intangible
philosophy, and to divorce it more and more from the alliance of rigid
science. On the other hand, its vague and shadowy character, and the
pretension to explain all things by one dominant idea have great
charms for the unwary and enthusiastic crowd, and it gives a cheap and
easy way of appearing learned and philosophical, which has a peculiar
attraction for an age characterized by a superficial and confused
expansion of thought and discussion, and by an intense craving for the
exciting and sensational. These elements of the thought of the age
must for some time longer give currency to the abundant coinage of a
mint which so easily converts the base metal of speculation into the
semblance of scientific conclusions.
J. WILLIAM DAWSON.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> ago, but he seems to think if he just ignores me for
> a while, the question just goes away.
You stated that you "used to work in marine biology."
Are you aware of a locking mechanism in the knee of any organism's
legs?
I read this article you mentioned:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_g110402A.xml&show_article=1
The article is about the possibility of an extra set of flippers being
on a certain dolphin that was found.
Do you think that that article:
is about a whale?
refers to legs on a whale?
refers to legs on a dolphin?
> So, -without copying and pasting - since
> we've already disproven all that bunk -
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
> please
> describe in your own words one prediction that ID
> gives.
As I've said to you before, ID doesn't make predictions.
////////////////////////////
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> As an example, I will state one prediction of
> Evolutionary Theory: If evolutionary theory is true,
> then we can expect that organisms in
> heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments
> will have higher mutation rates.
After an asteroid collided with the earth 65 million years ago, and
right before the dinosaurs became extinct, do you think dinosaurs had
"higher mutation rates"?
//////////////////////////////////////
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
> This is of course proven to be true time and time
> again, but for a simple example, I point to:
>
> Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of
> hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic
> fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253.
> See also Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon. 2000. When
> being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-
> 1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula.
> 2000. Pseudomonas survival strategies in cystic
> fibrosis (letter), 2000. Science 289: 391-392.
>
> In this article, Oliver explains that the bacteria
> existing in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients has
> a high mutation rate, as predicted by evolutionary
> theory.
Does "evolutionary theory" make any predictions about rabbits?
If 'yes,' what are all of the predictions "evolutionary theory" makes
about rabbits that you're aware of?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable; Jerry Adler & John Carey's comment
about Balkan prime ministers; Richard Milner
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000800.22592B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> Now it is your turn to do the same with ID, if you
> fail to do this, then you admit that ID is not science
> and thus have no argument that it should be
> taught in science classrooms.
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
> This is not a matter
> of opinion. It is an inescapable ultimatum. In order
> to teach something as science you must have at
> least one testable prediction. Anything less is
> complete and absolute failure.
>
> Copying and pasting "Problems with other
> theories" is NOT a prediction. Asking us why we
> can't see the prediction is NOT a prediction.
>
> Simply state one prediction in your own words.
> You are in the hot seat. Give us a testable
> prediction of ID or quite simply you lose.
What are 2 predictions of the theory of natural selection (if any)?
////////////////////////
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> Also, for people asking for transitional forms:
Dawson, J. William. 1900, in an encyclopedia entry for "Evolution,"
on 207:
"It is not difficult to obtain, by selecting series
out of the known fossil animals of successive
periods, chains of forms which may be
supposed to have produced each other; but
the gaps are enormous in structure, in time,
and in place, and there is no evidence of
genetic connection, while the apparently
abrupt and widespread introduction of new
forms at certain periods of geological time,
and their subsequent gradual decadence,
seem to indicate the incoming of new
dynasties of animals and plants in successive
waves rather than by a gradual and
imperceptible rise."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Schindewolf
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1900 Dawson: "sudden swarming in of forms of life over the world...
inconsistent with Darwinian uniformity"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ddeb4a95-f4c5-42a6...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> Pakicetus
> Indohyus
> Kutchitetus
> Ambulocetus natans
> Protocetus
> Rodhocetus
> Basilosaurus
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Christopher R.C. Paul. 1998. In _The Adequacy of the Fossil Record_
(John Wiley & Sons), cited by Fuz Rana in a PowerPoint file that's
online:
....with the benefit of hindsight, I am amazed
at how long we accepted that gradual
morphological change was the norm when
data to support this belief were so sparse and
the discrepancy had been known since
Darwin's time. Examples of gradual
evolutionary trends in the fossil record can be
counted on our fingers and we simply ignored
countless examples that do not show the
expected pattern. Lack of morphological
change was equated with lack of data and the
few examples of trends were with the truth....
the few known examples of gradual trends
are no more than random walks that just
happen to be more or less linear.
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution' in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
> Dorudon
> Squalodon
> Cetotherium
>
> Evolution predicted and fully explains all of these.
What are 3 other organisms that "evolution predicted"?
Does "evolution" predict when:
brains appeared?
hearts appeared?
nerves appeared?
> If you would like to teach an alternate theory, you
> must create a theory that not only predicts their
> existence but also explains how they came into
> being over the course of around 50 million years
> and makes predictions that can be used to predict
> the existence of further life forms.
Does "evolutionary theory" make any predictions about what "life
forms" exist on other planets?
If 'yes,' what are some of those predictions?
Brian E. Clark
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, said...
> Dawson, J. William. 1900,
The year is 2008, not 1900.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> david ford wrote:
> > Dawson, J. William. 1900,
>
> The year is 2008, not 1900.
OK.
someone else:
> I get really confused as to why this debate has to go to
> the depths of RNA,
How do you account for the origination of RNA?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1160055987.965719.141880%40e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> the fossil record,
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> dating techniques,
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> etc. to prove to people that the hypothesis of ID quickly
> kills itself. As Dawkins and Harris and many before
> them have pointed out... if we are too complex to have
> evolved, then what "created" your "GOD" who then
> created us.
12. Answer as to why, unlike the universe, the designer(s) does not
need a cause(s) of its existence
in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
> Anything so complex and capable of
> creating an advanced species such as ourselves with
> eyes, heart, lungs, etc.
Do you consider Haikouella "an advanced species"?
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang/Xidazoon-Haikouella/XidazoonHaikouella.htm
One one side is a mass mortality of Haikouella
lanceolata, thought by its describers to be the
earliest craniate-like chordate. This fish-like animal
has many similarities to the contemporaneous
Yunnanozoon lividum, but differs in several aspects:
it has a discernible heart, dorsal and ventral aorta,
gill filaments, and a neural chord.
> is obviously too complex to have
> evolved itself (since we are looking at that view) and
> would in fact mean you're probably worshipping the
> wrong god. It doesn't take rocket science, just a little
> common since and an open mind.
>
> Faith- believing in something with no evidence.
Do you believe that starting with simply non-living matter, life can
come from non-living matter?
Is it the case that starting with simply non-living matter, a high,
human-like level of intelligence can come from non-living matter?
//////////////////////////////////////////
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
highly-advanced 'computer' found in biology; Benyus; Tomlin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411131155.3c571bd5%40posting.google.com
David V.
How do ou account for the origination of your little gods?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Mike
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>> How do you account for the origination of RNA?
> Does the "d" in dford3 stand for "dumb fuck"?
>
> How do ou account for the origination of your little gods?
Dumb Fuck! Oh, Really Die.
Mike
> David V. wrote:
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>> How do you account for the origination of RNA?
>> Does the "d" in dford3 stand for "dumb fuck"?
>>
>> How do ou account for the origination of your little gods?
>
> Dumb Fuck! Oh, Really Die.
Actually; Dumb Fuck. Oh, REALLY Dumb^3.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
questions?"
Here's a statement:
my questions aren't "rhetorical questions," and it'd be great if they
received answers.
"So what is it? ID doesn't make predictions? Or does it make
predictions that you're pointing out in your most recent post?"
ID doesn't make predictions.
ID as a metaphysical research programme
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
"predictions that you're pointing out"
I take it you think there are predictions here:
Rana, Fazale with Hugh Ross. 2005. _Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model
Approach to the Origin of Man_ (USA: NavPress), 299pp. On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Adam-Creation-Approach/dp/1576835774
On 51-52:
RTB's HUMAN ORIGINS CREATION MODEL
PREDICTIONS
1. Humanity traces back to one woman (Eve) and
one man (Noah).
2. Humanity's early population size was relatively
small.
3. Humanity originated in a single location in or
near the Middle East.
4. Humanity's origin dates back to between 10,000
and 100,000 years ago.
5. The origin of the female lineage (Eve) predates
the origin of the male lineage (Noah).
6. God created humanity at the "just-right" time in
Earth's history.
7. Human culture appears and expands explosively
in the archeological record since humanity's origin.
8. Humans share anatomical, physical,
biochemical, and genetic similarities with the extinct
hominids as well as with great apes and other
animals.
9. Humans are behaviorally distinct (in ways that
reflect God's image) from the earlier hominids, the
great apes, and other animals.
10. A universal but local flood, that impacted all of
humanity, shaped human history.
11. Human life spans (once longer than 900 years)
became progressively shorter after the Flood.
12. Humanity spread around the world from in or
near the Middle East relatively recently.
13. The seeds of human civilization and agriculture
had their birth in or near the Middle East.
Gibbons, Ann. 1998. "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" _Nature_
279: 28-29. On 29, using the text at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bvvb4u$2rh$1%40grapevine.wam.umd.edu
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most
concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that
"mitochondrial Eve"-- the woman whose mtDNA
was ancestral to that in all living people-- lived
100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the
new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
"You've said ID doesn't make predictions and now you're insinuating
that it does, so I don't mean this in a mean way but you have been
shown to be a liar and if you say you aren't deceitful then you are at
least hypocritical. There is no way around that. You have stated very
explicitly 'Not A' and are now stating implicitly 'A.'"
Do _you_ consider the RTB creation model part of ID?
Does Rana?
"Now, obviously, we're dealing with some very rigorous scholars!"
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
howlers in Dawkins's works
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cb5b07cf7f312ab6
"Earth is truly an exceptional planet for intelligent life"
How so?
"I only have the most egregious segments highlighted"
When did you first become aware of the RTB creation model predictions
in Rana & Ross's _Who was Adam?_?
Michael Gray
<re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>In article <ddeb4a95-f4c5-42a6-adf4-4070c7cc9cd0
>@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, said...
>
>> Dawson, J. William. 1900,
>
>The year is 2008, not 1900.
For these ignorant fuckwits, 1900 is in the future.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> that I'm not interested in engaging with
> someone who does not engage my points.
> Cherry-pick all you'd like, it's wholly
> dishonest.
Picking fruit, including cherries, for a living is highly honorable.
Feynman on giving all the information
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> Have fun in your very small,
> sheltered bubble.
Thanks.
How is it that a smart guy like you believes in Spontaneous
Generation?
Fox, Sidney W. 1960. "A Chemical Theory of Spontaneous Generation"
in _Aspects of the Origin of Life_, edited by M. Florkin, President of
the International Union of Biochemistry. This book is volume 6 of the
International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Modern
Trends in Physiological Sciences Division, general editors P.
Alexander and Z.M. Bacq (Great Britain: Pergamon Press), 199pp.,
148-154. Fox was with the Oceanographic Institute, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida. On 148, the opening paragraph:
SUGGESTIONS of how life originated by natural
means were offered by the Greeks [1]. Charles
Darwin added to these vague concepts in 1871 [2]
one paragraph of chemical prescription for the
beginning of life. The details of Darwin's paragraph,
although inadequate, are in agreement with the
most advanced thinking today. The modem era of
thought in this field received great stimulus from the
book by Academician Oparin [1], whose pioneering
contribution we are privileged to honour at this
Symposium.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Darwin writing in 1871
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.3&pageseq=1
It is often said that all the conditions for the first
production of a living organism are now present,
which could ever have been present. But if (and oh!
what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little
pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric
salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a
proteine compound was chemically formed ready to
undergo still more complex changes, at the present
day such matter would be instantly devoured or
absorbed, which would not have been the case
before living creatures were formed.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Godidit.
'And who created your God?'
Uhmmm...he always existed?'"
Q: Where did the first life come from?
A: matterdidit.
Q: And who created your god i.e. matter?
A: matter always existed.
//////////////////////////////////////
Sagan, Carl. 1980. _Cosmos_ (NY: Random House), 365pp. Chapter
1's first line:
THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE.
Berenstain, Stan and Jan. 1975. _The Berenstain Bears' Nature Guide_
(NY: Random House), 64pp. On 10-11:
Nature....
It's all that IS
or WAS
or EVER WILL BE!
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp. On 141:
To explain the origin of the [very first] DNA/protein machine
by
invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely
nothing,
for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have
to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow
yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say
'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done
with it.
12. Answer as to why, unlike the universe, the designer(s) does not
need a cause(s) of its existence
in
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
the Nazi Robert Ley was an atheism-adherent who worshiped Hitler and
Nature
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143171898.121370.76730%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Thyssen, Fritz. 1941. _I Paid Hitler_ (London: Hodder and
Stoughton,
Ltd.), 319pp. Translated from the original French by Cesar
Saerchinger. On 234:
Practically all the young people forming part of
the SS have abjured Christianity. The same
applies to chiefs of the young Hitlerite
detachments. Many are followers of the new
German paganism and hold rituals in honour of
Wotan, the Sun, or Nature, the mother of all life,
if they do not formally worship Hitler.
the Nazi SS rejected Christianity (and its accompanying Judeo-
Christian morality)
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175341802.025602.289620%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html
"the countless images and references to Nazis"
Nazis "adopted... the vocabulary of Darwin"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177598217.454925.230300%40n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com
some findings re: Hitler, pro-death Darwinists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1149886564.932994.211090%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
"culminate in Stein dopily wandering through the Dachau concentration
camp pondering the ways in which the 'Darwinian gospel' was a
'necessary but not sufficient condition' for the atrocities that took
place there."
Gould: "Haeckel.... contributed to the rise of Nazism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Darwinist Bolsche; Nazi Darwinist Johann S.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143660228.632158.182410%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Claim: Haeckel joined the Thule Society.
Reality: that claim is unsubstantiated:
control - f/ "find" for: the search
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/archives/WCA0102.2.html
control - f/ "find" for: apologies
http://www.xn--enzyklopdie-s8a.de/Ernst_Haeckel.html
chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
"One woman said it was morally reprehensible to equate the death of
six million Jews with Darwin."
Darwin name "like dust in every room of a grotesque house"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177097591.881438.168990%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
"I asked how ID explains the complexity"
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> For example, I'm a Christian (with Jewish roots mind
> you! That means I had to read the bible and convert!)
I see.
> who accepts that evolution occurs. There are tons of us
> by the way!
> Think about it, what's more majestic anyhow, a God
> that has to be completely comprehended by IDists and
> gets put into a 6-day box that he can't get out of
Not all IDists think the earth is a few thousand years old.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 14
billion years old.
Go Away, Flood Geology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981223232528.26657B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> - or a
> God who is so majestic and so powerful that he can put
> a beautiful and wonderful process like evolution into
> effect?
Your use of "evolution" differs from the ways Dawkins uses it. It's
such a worthless word.
Do you think God made the first biological organism?
Do you think God made the creatures that appeared during the Cambrian
explosion?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
> And there's even room for him making humans special,
> believe it or not. Anytime an IDist says, "But if God
> created microbes first, how could he have known that
> eventually humans would result!" think about it! They're
> actually arguing that God is not intelligent enough to
> think ahead!
>
> That's why Intelligent Design is just plain bad theology.
> The IDists are trying to explain within the realm of
> human comprehension what God is! Classic example:
> Man puts his hand into a snake pit and says "God will
> keep me from being bitten!" He gets bit 42 times and is
> rushed to the hospital. While they're sucking the poison
> out, he thinks "I'll never believe in God again!" The
> problem with that and with ID is that they both put God
> into a strict set of limitations. As soon as their faith
> becomes tested when evidence contrary to those
> limitations arise, their faith crumbles! That's just bad
> theology!
1 Thessalonians 5 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205;&version=31;
21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
22 Avoid every kind of evil.
Acts 17 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017;&version=31;
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble
character than the Thessalonians, for they
received the message with great eagerness
and examined the Scriptures every day to see
if what Paul said was true.
> You also say:
>
> "Millions die every time they are in charge because
> darwinism can justify any act."
Columbine killer & Darwinist Eric Harris
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156558811.723504.189740%40b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Please don't disgrace my people (and yes the Jewish
> people are still my people despite my conversion - it's a
> culture thing like Swedes and Italians really) by
> blaming the holocaust on "Darwin." Hitler was anti-
> semitic and rotten to the core. Also feel free to look up
> Gott Mit Uns (that's German for God with us) and the
> Nazis wore it with pride.
Meaning there of "God"?
////////////////////////////////////////////
Stephen, Leslie. "Pantheism and Agnosticism" in
Darrow, Clarence and Wallace Rice. 1929. _Infidels and Heretics: An
Agnostic's Anthology_ (Boston, MA: The Stratford Company,
Publishers),
293pp., 34. On 34:
We no longer doubt, it is true, whether there be a
God, for our God means all reality.... We keep the
old word [i.e. 'God']; we have altered the whole of its
contents.
Hitler. Cited in
Heiden, Konrad. 1944. _Der Fuehrer: Hitler's Rise to Power_,
translated almost entirely by Ralph Manheim, with Norbert Guterman
translating the last chapter and part of the prior chapter (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company), 788pp. Heiden also wrote _A History of
National Socialism_. On 758:
Germany is our God on this earth.
1860 atheism-adherent Huxley:
"the Almighty...him" = "Nature....she";
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141353908.308726.161380%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
the Nazi Robert Ley was an atheism-adherent who worshiped Hitler and
Nature
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143171898.121370.76730%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
380 U.S. 163
United States v. Seeger.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Decided March 8, 1965.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=380&invol=163
Dr. David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture
Movement, states in his book, _Ethics As a Religion_
(1951), that "[e]verybody except the avowed atheists (and
they are comparatively few) believes in some kind of
God," and that "The proper question to ask, therefore, is
[380 U.S. 163, 183] not the futile one, Do you believe in
God? but rather, What kind of God do you believe in?"
Id., at 86-87. Dr. Muzzey attempts to answer that
question:
"Instead of positing a personal God, whose existence
man can neither prove nor disprove, the ethical concept
is founded on human experience. It is anthropocentric,
not theocentric. Religion, for all the various definitions
that have been given of it, must surely mean the devotion
of man to the highest ideal that he can conceive. And that
ideal is a community of spirits in which the latent moral
potentialities of men shall have been elicited by their
reciprocal endeavors to cultivate the best in their fellow
men. What ultimate reality is we do not know; but we
have the faith that it expresses itself in the human world
as the power which inspires in men moral purpose." At
95.
"Thus the 'God' that we love is not the figure on the great
white throne, but the perfect pattern, envisioned by faith,
of humanity as it should be, purged of the evil elements
which retard its progress toward 'the knowledge, love and
practice of the right.'" At 98.
These are but a few of the views that comprise the broad
spectrum of religious beliefs found among us. But they
demonstrate very clearly the diverse manners in which
beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their
possessors, may be articulated. They further reveal the
difficulties inherent in placing too narrow a construction
on the provisions of 6 (j) and thereby lend conclusive
support to the construction which we today find that
Congress intended.
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Also, I think my Jewish brethren would like to have a
> little talk with you on the pre-Darwin days. Feel free to
> look up:
>
> The Alexandria Massacre of 38 AD
>
> The Edict of Milan in 315 AD
>
> Read the Council of Nicea documents from 325 AD
> (thank God the Catholics have since renounced the
> "detestable company of the Jews" part! Otherwise I'd
> find it quite hard to convert!)
Naturally.
> The 337 AD edict from Constantine that Jews were not
> allowed to marry Christian women lest they be
> punished by death.
>
> In 339, converting to Judaism became a criminal
> offence.
>
> Around 370 St. Hilary of Poitiers said the Jews were a
> perverse people whom God had cursed forever.
>
> Around 500, Christian mobs destroyed synagogues at
> Antioch, Daphne, and Revenna
>
> In the eleventh century, there were quite a few
> pogroms (a pogrom being essentially a holocaust - an
> attempt to kill as many people of one faith as possible)
> There was a massacre in 1011 in Cordoba, a
> massacre in 1066 in Granada and numerous purges
> throughout France.
>
> In 1189, Richard Lionheart said that the Jews should
> be killed because they did not show reverence to the
> cross. Hundreds of homes were destroyed and the
> following year at Stamford fair, 57 Jews were killed by
> another Christian mob.
>
> Of course in 1205, the pope said that Jews were in
> eternal servitude for killing Jesus which a few
> unfortunate Christians still believe today, and in 1290
> hundreds of Jews were killed at the Tower of London
> while most believed that they were being deported to
> France. Others were just killed in their homes or
> banished and that kept happening for about 400 years
> before Oliver Cromwell reversed the policy.
>
> Let's not forget the 1504 massacre of over 5000 Jews
> in Portugal and the continued persecution of the
> Inquisition of the Jews for 300 years after.
>
> Then of course there's Martin Luther who wrote the
> book "On the Jews and Their Lies," which was a real
> shame because he was actually one of the few friendly
> to the Jews early in his life. Hitler of course would later
> read this book and agree with just about every word.
Luther's and Hitler's antis- were very different
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149000825.650983.94540%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> I'm skipping a lot by the way but I don't want this
> getting too long - let's just take a quick look at what
> Hitler said about the Jews.
>
> Hitler said:
>
> "I have been attacked because of my handling of the
> Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the
> Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in
> ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what
> they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no
> longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in
> which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was
> implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I
> recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent
> for the state and for the church and perhaps I am
> thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing
> them out of schools and public functions."
Klemperer, Victor. 1998. _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi
Years: 1933-1941_, translated by Martin Chalmers (NY: Random House),
519pp. This was first published in Germany in 1995. About the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375753788
On 249, from the entry for 31 January 1938:
....the sudden exclusion of non-Aryan doctors from the
private insurance schemes. Apart from that in recent
weeks anti-Semitism has once again been very much in
the foreground (it rotates: now the Jews, now the
Catholics, now the Protestant ministers).
The Nazis insisted upon the removal of crucifixes from schools and
hospitals. See:
Goebbels: "Goering... addressed a sharp letter to Bishops Galen...
and Berning"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1126795650.014139.97640%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler: "the Pan-German movement and its struggle against Rome....had
not been led with the necessary cold ruthlessness"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178279262.539263.210710%40u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/
clergymen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler preached a secular religion w/ race as 1 of its gods;
Hitler: "our two Christian denominations...bother the negroes with
their preaching.... It would be better if they left this work alone"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178805476.971439.53680%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> He said that in April 1933 speaking to Bishop Wilhelm
> Berning of Osnabrueck. He actually says that modern
> liberalism is evil and wants to go back to the church's
> old ways!
What if anything do you conclude from those Hitler remarks?
//////////////////////////////
Hitler lied to Stalin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8l4ja02lio%40drn.newsguy.com
2001 Abraham Foxman: Hitler was a big liar
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128010617.235272.105530%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
gullible believe atheist liar Hitler's lie that he a Xtian; 1934
Feuchtwanger
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/a270a8a3545ad0cb?dmode=source&hl=en
> And when the Hitler Juengen incorporated Protestant
> Youth groups, what did the German Christian
> Spokesman Herman Gruener say?
>
> "Hitler is the way of the Spirit and the will of God for the
> German people to enter the church of Christ."
"the German Christian Spokesman"
theological disputes among German Protestants
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129228612.176548.107730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> Oh damn, it looks like there's a heavy Christian
> influence, but wait okay - let's take a quick look at what
> a scientist has to say about the issue:
>
> "My dear Brethren! We all not only understand but are
> fully sympathetic to the recent motivations out of which
> the voelkisch movement has emerged. Notwithstanding
> the evil sound that the term has frequently acquired, I
> have always considered myself an anti-Semite. One
> cannot ignore that Jewry has played a leading role in
> all the destructive manifestations of modern
> civilization."
>
> Oh wow! That's pure evil! I can't believe a scientist said
> that! Oh wait, it wasn't a scientist was it? No, it was
> Bishop Otto Dibelius, a German Protestant Clergyman
> in an Easter message to his colleagues.
theological disputes among German Protestants
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129228612.176548.107730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Compare:
Lutheran Bishop Berggrav,
Protestant Professor Barth,
Greek Orthodox Patriarch Gaurilo,
Catholic Bishop von Galen,
Catholic Archbishop De Jong,
Catholic Archbishop Cardinal van Roey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1179325057.882664.265300%40e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Catholic Bishop Aliege of Toulouse
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180060421.313551.136540%40k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Catholic Father Lichtenberg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1180057149.847019.235740%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
resistance to Hitler
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146158953.142022.188680%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
> Jewish History is obviously a bit of a sticking point for
> me, I apologize for letting this post go so long; but I
> would love to see how you or Ben Stein in this film
> argues that Darwin caused all those pogroms and
> edicts banning and torturing the Jews that went on
> almost from the point of the death of Christ up to the
> 1800s, before Darwin was even born!
Compare what atheists did in the 20th century.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
the Nazi Robert Ley was an atheism-adherent who worshiped Hitler and
Nature
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143171898.121370.76730%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
1942 Nazi atheism-adherent Martin Bormann: "National Socialist and
Christian Concepts are Incompatible"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167155551.253465.117650%4048g2000cwx.googlegroups.com
atheism-adherents killed 200k+ Russian Orthodox clergy;
1913 Lenin: "every religious idea, every idea of
God...is...vileness...'contagion'"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175046925.369909.39320%40y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Marxist-Leninist atheism-adherents responsible for the killing of 94+
million
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1167099703.362978.48000%40i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Or how he
> argues that atheists were responsible when they were
> all carried out by either Muslims or Christians.
Lapin, Rabbi Daniel. 1999. _America's Real War_ (USA: Multnomah
Publishers), 362pp., in the chapter "Christians and the Holocaust," on
326-7. About the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576736555/qid=1141136590
There has been no shortage of tragedies to
commemorate in Jewish history. If a Jew can still
bring tears to his eyes when he thinks of an
ancestor killed in medieval times, it is no surprise
that he still has an instinctive reaction toward the
medieval church, which was often the instigator of,
or at least an accomplice to, the violence. But
although the Holocaust is difficult to discuss
dispassionately, I still think it is time for a
reassessment.
I do, however, want to make three points clear.
First, although most parts of medieval Europe were
certainly governed by religiously empowered
authorities, the populations, particularly those
elements that regularly delighted in pogroms, were
mostly wild mobs. Let us remember a key
difference between modern America and medieval
Europe. In Europe, a politically and economically
powerful clergy ruled largely illiterate mobs. In
America, a powerless clergy presides over deeply
religious, sophisticated, and educated Christians. In
Europe there were centuries of pogroms; such has
never been the case in America.
Let's face up to another fact. Life in America has
accustomed us to peace among various religious
groups. In contrast, European religious life has
been unpleasant for many people over the
centuries. While, as a Jew, I mourn for my own
people, historically Christian denominations in
Europe tended to also persecute each other. If we
are relying on European memories as our guide, not
only Jews, but Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, and
other groups have reason to distrust one another.
For example, the life story of the famed scientist
Johannes Keppler, who was a Lutheran, contains
more than its fair share of entire communities of
Lutherans being exiled and persecuted by the
Catholic church. Life was pretty unpleasant for
everyone back then. Jews may have been more
consistently and cruelly victimized, but if every
group that has faced religious persecution through
the ages brought that suspicion and hostility to
America with them, this country would be far less
pleasant to live in today.
It in no way diminishes the horrors of the Holocaust
to acknowledge other examples of man's
inhumanity to man. Let's not forget the massacre of
the Armenians by the Turks, which Hitler was
quoted as saying proved to him that genocide was
possible. Stalin's war against his own population,
Pol Pot's massacres in Cambodia, and the killing
fields of Africa (for which the final total of deaths
may never be known) are among pogroms that the
world has known.
As to the Holocaust itself, we need to concede a
third point. Although Jews and Christians correctly
see in the rise of Nazism a failure on the part of the
church, Hitler was made possible by the triumph of
scientific naturalism in Europe, not by organized
religion. Nazism was, after all, "National Socialism,"
and any form of socialism has intellectual roots in
the secular Left, not the religious Right. While
centuries of anti-Semitism by the church certainly
made Hitler's task a little easier, we also must
recognize that in Lutheran countries such as
Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, devout
Christians, and often the church leadership itself,
turned the rescuing of Jews into a religious mission.
That fact cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant.
Many Catholic and Protestant church leaders in
Europe realized that Hitler hated God and the
church. Many lost their lives. Only a society in
which the church had already been weakened could
breed Nazism. This is one of the reasons that I
insist Jews should do everything in their power to
support and encourage American Christians in their
task of taking back the culture.
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
factoids on atheism-adherent Stalin's 1937-8 Great Terror
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166240537.094725.53530%40l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
Stalin's Godless Five-Year Plan
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1175094642.518221.171080%40d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
Cambodian atheism-adherent Khmer Rouge slogan: rallying slogan for
atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144250342.999150.199940%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> It's just sort of sick and it really belittles what the
> Jewish people went through to blame all of that on the
> holocaust
I suspect you intend 'on Darwin.'
Because of Darwin, 'Jewish' became biologized. Before the Darwinian
Revolution, 'Jews' could avoid persecution by ceasing to accept
Judaism. After the Darwinian Revolution, 'Jews' couldn't cease to be
'Jews'-- Jewishness had been biologized.
Darwinianity-popularizer Bolsche in _Mein Kampf_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143260442.793652.326240%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
[1871/ 74 Darwin]"Europeans and Hindoos... belong to the same Aryan
stock.... Jews... belong to the Semitic stock"
[1872 Darwin]"Blushing is evident in all the Aryan nations of
Europe.... The
Semitic races blush freely, as might have been expected, from their
general similitude to the Aryans."
[Darwin]"Dr. Saviotti in... 1871... remarks that it more frequently
occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132942108.117285.130610%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Maser: "Darwin, one of Hitler's 'teachers'"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143173595.248723.143420%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Darwin name "like dust in every room of a grotesque house"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1177097591.881438.168990%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> so please try to understand the topic a little
> better before you start just attacking atheists for it.
Has atheism, or atheists, ever helped 'Jews'?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lapin, Rabbi Daniel. 1999. _America's Real War_ (USA: Multnomah
Publishers), 362pp., in the chapter
"Christians and the Holocaust," on 331. About the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576736555/qid=1141136590
Corrie [ten Boom] ended her days recently in
Southern California, unrecognized and unthanked
by a Jewish community obsessed with _Schindler's
List_. We owe her an apology. .... They ['the
Jewish community'] have, to my dismay, rejected
this particular book [_The Hiding Place_] and the
movie derived from it. .... In my mind, any Jew who
talks of the "threat of the religious Right" but has not
read _The Hiding Place_ has no credibility
whatsoever.
_The Hiding Place_
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553256696
Corrie ten Boom
http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/mighty/portraits/corrie_ten_boom_159770.html
Dobschiner, Johanna-Ruth. 1969, 1973, 2001. _Selected to Live (God
Changes Lives)_. On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0340746335
My 1973 copy has a foreword by Corrie ten Boom.
Dr. Marie L.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/LiftonT297.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/LiftonT298.shtml
Churches resisted Hitler
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128561942.412167.145530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Gill, Anton. 1994. _An Honourable Defeat: A History of German
Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945_ (NY: Henry Holt and Company), 293pp.
On 45:
It is a feature of the Resistance that many of its
members were, or became, devout Christians....
> If ID is not only bad science but bad theology and bad
> history, why do you want it taught in a science
> classroom?
I say, get rid of public schooling, and have schools compete for
students, and teach whatever parents want them to teach. Allow
parents to decide exactly what instruction they want their kids to
receive.
Remind me, how is ID "bad history"?
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Do you consider arguments along the lines of 'God wouldn't have made
these poor structures' to have "bad theology"?
///////////////////////////////////
the panda's "thumb" argument
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405181220.3a30b3b5%40posting.google.com
Gould and false dichotomy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403101915.25dc7a6a%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291823.78264831%40posting.google.com
Darwin: "If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no
reason to believe that their _first_ birth or production should be
necessarily designed."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404161917.475b5fc0%40posting.google.com
Darwin to Gray on the fan-tail
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404170630.5cb94298%40posting.google.com
atheism-adherent Mussolini science experiment disproved existence of
God of theism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1177901807.528939.160150%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
outer space observations vs. God
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271913.53e1cdd1%40posting.google.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the
> Lord's work."
> - Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and in a 1938 speech he
> gave at the Reichstag
What if anything do you conclude from those Hitler remarks?
//////////////////////////////
did Hitler have Jesus Christ as the "Lord" of Hitler's life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178369798.677557.114240%40y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
1943 Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian
doctrine of redemption"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1939 Goebbels: "The Fuhrer is... completely anti-Christian."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145975885.494352.40950%40g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1938 Rosenberg: "our Leader's viewpoint": "catholic church...must
disappear from the life of our people"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/e43c9591fa69d57e?hl=en&
atheist Hitler preached a secular religion w/ race as 1 of its gods;
Hitler: "our two Christian denominations...bother the negroes with
their preaching.... It would be better if they left this work alone"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178805476.971439.53680%40n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Hitler: "the Pan-German movement and its struggle against Rome....had
not been led with the necessary cold ruthlessness"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1178279262.539263.210710%40u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
atheist Hitler on the arrogant drivel of opinionated sky pilots/
clergymen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1178220883.051154.190660%40n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
2001 Abraham Foxman: Hitler was a big liar
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1128010617.235272.105530%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler lied to Stalin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8l4ja02lio%40drn.newsguy.com
gullible believe atheist liar Hitler's lie that he a Xtian; 1934
Feuchtwanger
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/a270a8a3545ad0cb?dmode=source&hl=en
Hitler, Adolf, during meal times to his innermost circle plus the
occasional reliable guest, e.g. Himmler, as prepared by Hitler's
secretary Martin Bormann. 1953. _Hitler's Secret Conversations:
1941-1944_, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, with an
introductory essay "The Mind of Adolf Hitler" by H.R. Trevor-Roper
(NY:
Farrar, Straus and Young), 597pp. On 69, from the entry for 24
October 1941:
Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of
free research. The Church's opposition to science
was sometimes so violent that it struck off sparks.
The Church, with a clear awareness of her
interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the
result that science has lost some of its
aggressiveness. The present system of teaching in
schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m.
the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at
which the creation of the world is presented to
them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible;
and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural
science, at which they are taught the theory of
evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete
contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this
contradiction, and ran my head against a wall.
Often I complained to one or another of my
teachers against what I had been taught an hour
before-- and I remember that I drove them to
despair. Christian religion tries to get out of it by
explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to
the images of Holy Writ.
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
solidification of Galton's conversion to atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1152069471.339904.173350%40v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
Hitler, Adolf. written 1928, later published as _Hitler's Secret
Book_, and as the 2003 _Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel
to _Mein Kampf_ by Adolf Hitler_, translated by Krista Smith, ed. by
Gerhard L. Weinberg (USA: Enigma Books), 293pp. From Chapter 1, "War
and Peace" linked to from
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/hsb/index.htm
Countless are the species of all the Earth's
organisms, unlimited at any moment in individuals is
their instinct for self preservation as well as the
longing for continuance, yet the space in which the
whole life process takes place is limited. The
struggle for existence and continuance in life waged
by billions upon billions of organisms takes place on
the surface of an exactly measured sphere. The
compulsion to engage in the struggle for existence
lies in the limitation of the living space; but in the life
struggle for this living space lies also the basis for
evolution.
In the times before man, world history was primarily
a presentation of geological events: the struggle of
natural forces with one another, the creation of an
inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of
water from land, the formation of mountains, of
plains, and of the seas. This is the world history of
this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life,
man's interest concentrated on the process of
becoming and the passing away of its thousandfold
forms. And only very late did man finally become
visible to himself, and thus by the concept of world
history he began to understand first and foremost
only the history of his own becoming, that is, the
presentation of his own evolution. This evolution is
characterised by an eternal struggle of men against
beasts and against men themselves. From the
invisible confusion of the organisms there finally
emerged formations: Clans, Tribes, Folks, States.
The description of their origins and their passing
away is but the representation of an eternal struggle
for existence.
In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler embraced the concept of Darwinian natural
selection. It's not necessary to use the phrases 'Darwinian natural
selection' or 'selection' while writing in support of Darwinian
natural
selection.
IOW, someone can write in support of Darwinian natural selection all
without using the phrase 'natural selection.'
In a 1928 sequel to _Mein Kampf_, Hitler:
a) used the phrase [Hitler]"natural selection," and
b) employed Malthusian concepts without using the word 'Malthus':
1928 Hitler: "a kind of natural selection takes place"
http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm
The present distribution of world space in a one
sided way turns out to be so much in favour of
individual nations that the latter perforce have an
understandable interest in not allowing any further
change in the present distribution of territories. But
the overabundance of territory enjoyed by these
nations contrasts with the poverty of the others,
which, despite the utmost industry, are not in a
position to produce their daily bread so as to keep
alive. What higher rights would one want to oppose
against them if they also raise the claim to a land
area which safeguards their sustenance?
No. The primary right of this world is the right to life,
so far as one possesses the strength for this.
Hence, on the basis of this right, a vigorous nation
will always find ways of adapting its territory to its
population size.
Once a nation, as the result either of weakness or
bad leadership, can no longer eliminate the
disproportion between its increased population and
the fixed amount of territory by increasing the
productivity of its soil, it will necessarily look for
other ways. It will then adapt the population size to
the soil.
Nature as such herself performs the first adaptation
of the population size to the insufficiently nourishing
soil. Here distress and misery are her devices. A
Folk can be so decimated through them that any
further population increase practically comes to a
halt. The consequences of this natural adaptation of
the Folk to the soil are not always the same. First of
all a very violent struggle for existence sets in,
which only individuals who are the strongest and
have the greatest capacity for resistance can
survive. A high infant mortality rate on the one hand
and a high proportion of aged people on the other
are the chief signs of a time which shows little
regard for individual life. Since, under such
conditions, all weaklings are swept away through
acute distress and illness, and only the healthiest
remain alive, a kind of natural selection takes place.
Thus the number of a Folk can easily be subject to
a limitation, but the inner value can remain, indeed it
can experience an inner heightening. But such a
process cannot last for too long, otherwise the
distress can also turn into its opposite. In nations
composed of racial elements that are not wholly of
equal value, permanent malnutrition can ultimately
lead to a dull surrender to the distress, which
gradually reduces energy, and instead of a struggle
which fosters a natural selection, a gradual
degeneration sets in. This is surely the case once
man, in order to control the chronic distress, no
longer attaches any value to an increase of his
number, and resorts on his own to birth control. For
then he himself immediately embarks upon a road
opposite to that taken by nature. Whereas nature,
out of the multitude of beings who are born, spares
the few who are most fitted in terms of health and
resistance to wage life's struggle, man limits the
number of births, and then tries to keep alive those
who have been born with no regard to their real
value or to their inner worth. Here his humanity is
only the handmaiden of his weakness, and at the
same time it is actually the cruellest destroyer of his
existence. If man wants to limit the number of births
on his own, without producing the terrible
consequences which arise from birth control, he
must give the number of births free rein but cut
down on the number of those remaining alive. At
one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise
measure, but not our present, mendaciously
sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule
of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and
fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in
consequence of the high racial value of the
Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic
race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as
the first Folkish State. The exposure of sick, weak,
deformed children, in short their destruction, was
more decent and in truth a thousand times more
humane than the wretched insanity of our day which
preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed
at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred
thousand healthy children in consequence of birth
control or through abortions, in order subsequently
to breed a race of degenerates burdened with
illnesses.
Hence it can be said in general that the limitation of
the population through distress and human
agencies may very well lead to an approximate
adaptation to the inadequate living space, but the
value of the existing human material is constantly
lowered and indeed ultimately decays.
The second attempt to adapt the population size to
the soil lies in emigration, which so long as it does
not take place tribally, likewise leads to a
devaluation of the remaining human material.
Human birth control wipes out the bearer of the
highest values, emigration destroys the value of the
average.
Darwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1138716868.472338.186610%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
In Sparta, also, a form of selection
was followed, for it was enacted that all children should
be examined shortly after birth; the well-formed and
vigorous being preserved, the others left to perish.*(3)
Malthusian thinking in remarks by Hitler
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137178715.710123.107820%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1933 Hitler: "they ['liberal priests'] have made Haeckel and Darwin,
Goethe and Stefan George the prophets of their Christianity"
Cited in
Rauschning, Hermann. 1940, 2003. _The Voice of Destruction_
(Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company), 295pp., 50.
is Darwin, or Hitler, today's most-famous Darwinist?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1138681336.761356.170100%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> right.
> Just don't try to force it into a classroom, it doesn't
> belong there. Try it, and I'll be there, stopping your
> ignorance.
Would you have a problem with me forcing these Simpson views "into a
classroom"?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
/////////////////////////////////////////
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
> Don't try to use it to explain anything you don't
> understand,
I don't understand how spontaneous generation could have occurred--
yet it's a **fact** that spontaneous generation occurred.
> it makes you and your god small
> when scientists find the answer.
What god(s) do you think I worship?
//////////////////////////////////////////////
worship of one's self
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155401734.714656.220870%40m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Giles, Doug. 27 October 2007. "Atheism: An Intellectual Revolt or
Pelvic Rebellion?"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2007/10/27/atheism_an_intellectual_revolt_or_pelvic_rebellion?page=full&comments=true
the question of accountability/ autonomy favors conversion to atheism
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137184204.545825.116810%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Q: What causes lightening and thunder?
> A: Godidit.
> Q: No, we have an explanation. God didn't do it.
> A: Ummm. I refuse to look at your evidence.
What's your explanation for how spontaneous generation could have
occurred?
///////////////////////////////////
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
big gap in a purely naturalistic account of the world
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163337742.608958.162710%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Control - f/ "find" for: clay
Batch of replies to John Wilkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-389cg9F5lbshpU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
> Q: How old is the Earth?
> A: 6000 years old.
> Q: No, we have much evidence that the Earth is
> far older than that.
> A: Ummm. I refuse to look at your evidence.
omphalic YEC and blindwatchmakingist parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411270821.29ee3dd9%40posting.google.com
> You see the pattern?
Yes.
Do you think biology has the appearance of having been designed by
intelligence?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135748125.229401.252690%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
////////////////////////////////////////////
David V.
Everyone has concluded long a go that you cannot post an original
thought. All you can do is cut and paste what other people have
said. It appears that you have some kind of brain injury. Have
you ever been hit in the head?
chibiabos
<eb3e7169-58cc-4d5b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Would you have a problem with me forcing these Simpson views "into a
> classroom"?:
I would have a problem with you going anywhere near a classroom as
anything but a student or a janitor.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
The Diaries of Count Harry Kessler (1918-1937)_ NY: Grove Press),
535pp., translated and edited by Charles Kessler. On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-Lights-Diaries-Kessler-1918-1937/dp/080213839X
From the entry for 14 June 1927, a paragraph on 322:
Kerr, who sat listening with his vulgar little wife,
constantly interrupted with facetious remarks which
he thought witty but which were not even funny.
The subject of God was a special butt for his
derision. I tried to silence him and said that, since
Einstein is very religious, he should not needlessly
hurt his feelings. 'What?' exclaimed Kerr. 'It isn't
possible! I must ask him right away. Professor! I
hear that you are supposed to be deeply religious?'
Calmly and with great dignity, Einstein replied, 'Yes,
you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our
limited means the secrets of nature and you will find
that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there
remains something subtle, intangible and
inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond
anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To
that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.' Before
that he brushed aside categorically, indeed slightly
irritably, my remark that his discoveries have had as
revolutionary an effect on our view of the world as
those of Tycho Brahe and Copernicus. 'There is
_nothing_ so revolutionary about my observations.'
1930 at-the-latest
Einstein, Albert. Cited in Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein
and Religion: Physics and Theology_ (USA: Princeton
University Press), 279pp., 48, who obtained the remark from
D. Brian, _Einstein-- A Life_ (Wiley, New York, 1966), p.
186, who obtained the remark from G. S. Viereck, _Glimpses
of the Great_ (Macauley, New York, 1930). Einstein is
responding to an inquiry to define God:
I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a
pantheist. We are in the position of a little child
entering a huge library filled with books in many
languages. The child knows someone must have written
those books. It does not know how. It does not
understand the languages in which they are written. The
child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the
arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most
intelligent human being toward God. We see the
universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws
but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the
constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with
the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> Everyone has concluded long a go that you cannot post an original
> thought. All you can do is cut and paste what other people have
> said. It appears that you have some kind of brain injury. Have
> you ever been hit in the head?
Yes.
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
reaction to Dawkins review of "Expelled"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8638ed0bec53c5ba
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> I would have a problem with you going anywhere near a classroom as
> anything but a student or a janitor.
How come?-- could you elaborate?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/443d6bc0b02dd25e?dmode=source
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
chibiabos
<c37ceb91-1e1b-4161...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, chibiabos <chibia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > I would have a problem with you going anywhere near a classroom as
> > anything but a student or a janitor.
>
> How come?-- could you elaborate?
Yes. You're either in serious need of an education or you're uneducable.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> abiogenesis and spontaneous
> generation, which is very much a
> mistake, albeit a common one.
Did Darwin make that mistake while writing the letter below to the
freethinker/ atheist Ernst Haeckel?
C. Darwin to E. Haeckel.
Down, September 25, 1873.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.3&pageseq=1
MY DEAR HAECKEL,--I thank you for the present of
your book,*
[*: 'Schopfungs-Geschichte,' 4th ed. The translation
('The History of Creation') was not published until
1876.]
and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You
will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the
doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so
many original observations. I have read the new
preface with very great interest. The delay in the
appearance of the English translation vexes and
surprises me, for I have never been able to read it
thoroughly in German, and I shall assuredly do so
when it appears in English. Has the problem of the
later stages of reduction of useless structures ever
perplexed you? This problem has of late caused me
much perplexity. I have just written a letter to
'Nature' with a hypothetical explanation of this
difficulty, and I will send you the paper with the
passage marked. I will at the same time send a
paper which has interested me; it need not be
returned. It contains a singular statement bearing
on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish
that this latter question could be settled, but I see no
prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would
be most important to us. . . .
Wishing you every success in your admirable
labours,
I remain, my dear Haeckel, yours very sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
/////////////////////////////////
1874 Huxley: "unbelieving dogs who resist the Prophet of Evolution"
i.e. Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141181413.323360.165370%40p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Darwin praise for Rolle, T.H. Huxley, Buchner, & Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134766736.390460.205460%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Gould: "Haeckel.... contributed to the rise of Nazism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:536b6d09-be34-47da...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Oh, fucking, no. Not this troll back again.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> to pick apart and critique the Bible on
> MORAL grounds.
Indeed.
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocide
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Reagan's allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132849740.419205.114320%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Telushkin, Rabbi Joseph. 1997. _Biblical Literacy: The Most
Important People, Events, and Ideas of the Hebrew Bible_ (NY: William
Morrow and Company), 628pp. On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Literacy-Important-People-Events/dp/0688142974
On 439-440, 442:
166. Slavery in the Bible
SCATTERED REFERENCES IN EXODUS,
CHAPTER 21, AND THROUGHOUT THE TORAH
"If slavery not wrong, nothing is wrong," declared
American President Abraham Lincoln.
Unfortunately, the Hebrew Bible, radical and
uncompromising in its battle against idolatry, was
evolutionary rather than revolutionary in its rulings
regarding slavery. Thus, although the Book of
Exodus is in large measure an antislavery polemic--
the Egyptian people suffer ten horrific plagues as
punishment for enslaving the Hebrews-- the Bible
did permit slavery in the society the Israelites
established in Canaan.
To be sure, the biblical laws mandated a more
humane form of slavery than that practiced in other
contemporaneous societies. For example, a master
who beat his slave to death was himself punished
with death (Exodus 21:20ff.); this was a powerful
statement of the belief that, in God's eyes, slaves
are as important as masters. Unfortunately, the
humanitarian thrust behind this law was largely
undermined by the added provision that if the
beaten slave did not die immediately, but lingered
for two days or longer before succumbing, the
master was not punished, "for he is his [master's]
property." The reference to a human being as
"property" is jarring.
The humanitarian inclination again comes to the
fore in the ruling that a master who causes his slave
to lose a limb, or even just a tooth, is obligated to
free him (Exodus 21:26), a ruling that once more
emphasizes the slave's humanity. But if a slave is
gored to death by another man's ox, it is the slave's
owner who receives the thirty-shekel fine (Exodus
21:32)-- thirty shekels being the average price for a
slave-- which yet again emphasizes that the slave is
property, more akin to animal than human being.
Perhaps the most unusually liberal law concerning
slaves is found in Deuteronomy 23:16, which
prohibits returning a runaway slave to his master, it
being assumed that a slave fled his master because
he suffered, and must therefore be granted refuge.
It was of course this biblical law that Chief Justice
Taney violated in the United States Supreme
Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which
Taney led the court in its ruling that a slave who had
been taken to a free state could subsequently, and
against his will, be returned to slavery. Taney's
contempt for the Bible was likewise evident in his
statement that "black people have no rights which a
white man need to respect," a frank repudiation of
the rights of a slave that the Bible enjoins masters
to respect.
In the modern world, application of this
deuteronomic law would encompass granting
political asylum to refugees from totalitarian states,
since many residents of such societies lead lives
akin to slaves.
Concerning the Bible's overall attitude toward
slavery, it should be emphasized that, although
permitted, no law more powerfully indicates the
Bible's fundamental opposition to slavery than the
mandatory death sentence for anyone who kidnaps
and sells a person into slavery (Exodus 21:16).
==
Although slavery as practiced in the United States
violated many of the Bible's norms (e.g., Southern
law did not free a slave whose limb had been
destroyed by a master, or whose tooth the master
had knocked out; it did not punish the murder of a
slave with death-- in most instances, no punishment
at all was rendered-- and it violated the biblical
ordinance granting freedom to runaway slaves), the
fact that the Bible allowed it enabled many
nineteenth-century clerical charlatans to argue that
God approved of slavery as practiced in the United
States.
It is important to note, however, that the
abolitionists-- whose reading of the Bible's intent
was closer to the truth than that of their proslavery
adversaries-- were generally deeply religious
students of the Bible.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tutu: "If any book should be banned by those who rule unjustly and as
tyrants, then it is the Bible."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1179340230.530341.317370%40o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
1989 Koster: "it was Christianity that put an end to slavery around
the globe"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406281819.5f06fed5%40posting.google.com
atheocratic North Korea's slave trade
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1131559540.282445.90700%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]"master[s]"
over
[Darwin]"subjugated... men"
having
[Darwin]"utility to their masters"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
David V.
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote.......
>
> Oh, fucking, no. Not this troll back again.
Judging from his address, he must the the janitor at some school.
I don't think he's bright enough to use a fake address or how to
fake one.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
"Spontaneous Generation....If it could be proved true....
> Not this troll back again.
Are you aware of any experimental [Huxley]"evidence in favour of
abiogenesis"?
Huxley, T.H. The Progress of Science (1887) Collected Essays I
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/ProSci.html
At the present time, the cell theory, in consequence
of recent investigations into the structure and
metamorphosis of the "nucleus" is undergoing a
new development of great significance, which
among other things, foreshadows the possibility of
the establishment of a physical theory of heredity,
on a safer foundation than those which Buffon and
Darwin have devised.
The popular belief in abiogenesis, or the so-called
"spontaneous" generation of the lower forms of life,
which was accepted by all the philosophers of
antiquity, held its ground down to the middle of the
seventeenth century. Notwithstanding the frequent
citation of the phrase, wrongfully attributed to
Harvey, "Omne vivum ex ovo," that great
physiologist believed in spontaneous generation as
firmly as Aristotle did. And it was only in the latter
part of the seventeenth century, that Redi, by simple
and well-devised experiments, demonstrated that, in
a great number of cases of supposed spontaneous
generation, the animals which made their
appearance owed their origin to [116] the ordinary
process of reproduction, and thus shook the ancient
doctrine to its foundations. In the middle of the
eighteenth century, it was revived, in a new form, by
Needham and Buffon; but the experiments of
Spallanzani enforced the conclusions of Redi, and
compelled the advocates of the occurrence of
spontaneous generation to seek evidence for their
hypothesis only among the parasites and the lowest
and minutest organisms. It is just fifty years since
Schwann and others proved that, even with respect
to them, the supposed evidence of abiogenesis was
untrustworthy.
During the present epoch, the question, whether
living matter can be produced in any other way than
by the physiological activity of other living matter,
has been discussed afresh with great vigour; and
the problem has been investigated by experimental
methods of a precision and refinement unknown to
previous investigators. The result is that the
evidence in favour of abiogenesis has utterly broken
down, in every case which has been properly
tested. So far as the lowest and minutest
organisms are concerned, it has been proved that
they never make their appearance, if those
precautions by which their germs are certainly
excluded are taken. And, in regard to parasites,
every case which seemed to make for their
generation from the substance of the animal, or
plant, which they infest has been proved to [117]
have a totally different significance. Whether not-
living matter may pass, or ever has, under any
conditions, passed into living matter, without the
agency of pre-existing living matter, necessarily
remains an open question; all that can be said is
that it does not undergo this metamorphosis under
any known conditions. Those who take a monistic
view of the physical world may fairly hold
abiogenesis as a pious opinion, supported by
analogy and defended by our ignorance. But, as
matters stand, it is equally justifiable to regard the
physical world as a sort of dual monarchy. The
kingdoms of living matter and of not-living matter
are under one system of laws, and there is a perfect
freedom of exchange and transit from one to the
other. But no claim to biological nationality is valid
except birth.
"hold abiogenesis as a pious opinion, supported by analogy and
defended by our ignorance"
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
An irrelevant "abiogenesis" paper,
4th up from the bottom of
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
"foreshadows the possibility of the establishment of a physical theory
of heredity, on a safer foundation than those which Buffon and Darwin
have devised"
1916 Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com
Hitler: "Mendelian Law Of Division"; "artificially hinders nature's
process of selection"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143904445.023098.35410%40j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Down, July 12th [1870].
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1548.1&pageseq=1
Your conclusion that all speculation about
preordination is idle waste of time is the only wise
one; but how difficult it is not to speculate! My
theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the
universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see
no evidence of beneficent design or indeed of
design of any kind, in the details. As for each
variation that has ever occurred having been
preordained for a special end, I can no more believe
in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain
falls has been specially ordained.
Spontaneous generation seems almost as great a
puzzle as preordination. I cannot persuade myself
that such a multiplicity of organisms can have been
produced, like crystals, in Bastian's [1] solutions of the
same kind. I am astonished that, as yet, I have met
with no allusion to Wyman's positive statement [2]
[(] Solutions of organic matter in hermetically sealed
flasks were immersed in boiling water for various
periods. "No infusoria of any kind appeared if the
boiling was prolonged beyond a period of five
hours.") that if the solutions are boiled for five hours
no organisms appear; yet, if my memory serves me,
the solutions when opened to air immediately
became stocked. Against all evidence, I cannot
avoid suspecting that organic particles (my
gemmules from the separate cells of the lower
creatures!) will keep alive and afterwards multiply
under proper conditions.
What an interesting problem it is.
1. On September 2nd, 1872, Mr. Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace, in
reference to the latter's review of _The Beginnings of Life_, by H.C.
Bastian (1872), in _Nature_, 1872, pages 284-99: "At present I should
prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every disintegrated molecule
of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form; and that these
molecules are universally distributed, and that they do not lose their
vital power until heated to such a temperature that they decompose
like dead organic particles."
2. "Observations and Experiments on Living Organisms in Heated
Water," by Jeffries Wyman, Prof. of Anatomy, Harvard Coll. (_Amer.
Journ. Sci._ XLIV., 1867, page 152.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> In article <c37ceb91-1e1b-4161-a759-7077a5dcc...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, chibiabos <chibia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > I would have a problem with you going anywhere near a classroom as
> > > anything but a student or a janitor.
> >
> > How come?-- could you elaborate?
>
> Yes. You're either in serious need of an education or you're uneducable.
In "need of an education" about what subject(s)?
David V.
> On Apr 16, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> in Re: 1873
> Darwin: "Spontaneous Generation....If it could be proved
> true....
>
>> Not this troll back again.
>
>
Are you aware that you're a troll?
chibiabos
<1d013c54-6e28-4304...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 7:15 pm, chibiabos <chibia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c37ceb91-1e1b-4161-a759-7077a5dcc...@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, chibiabos <chibia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > I would have a problem with you going anywhere near a classroom as
> > > > anything but a student or a janitor.
> > >
> > > How come?-- could you elaborate?
> >
> > Yes. You're either in serious need of an education or you're uneducable.
>
> In "need of an education" about what subject(s)?
So, it's the latter, eh?
John Baker
Plonk him and forget about him. Works for me. <G>
>
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
An intelligence(s).
"If complexity of creations corresponds with complexity of the
creators,
then who or what designed the Ebola virus (or HIV for that matter)?"
I've made a sentence, and I've made a far more complex, lengthy essay.
I had the same level of complexity when making the sentence, and when
making the essay.
"It seems that ID also assumes that God would use a design similar to
what a human designer would use. Is that creating God in man's
image?"
It's a fact that there are things in biology that are similar to what
humans have created.
Sometimes that's because humans succeeded in trying to mimic things
present in biology.
ID can get close to, but not all the way to, the Judeo-Christian God.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
"Does God work in ways we expect?"
Sometimes, and sometimes not.
"What if God's design is an adapting, changing, and renewing creation
through the process of evolution?"
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Is it the case that starting with simply non-living matter, life can
come from non-living matter?
"the Flying Spaghetti monster"
the teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164598575.019652.248620%4045g2000cws.googlegroups.com
"Why aren't human remains found in the Precambrian strata?"
Because humans weren't around 543+ million years ago.
"Life started out with simple organisms and has grown ever more
complex."
What's more complex, the organisms that originated during the Cambrian
Explosion (aka Biology's Big Bang), or the organisms that originated
shortly after the Permian mass extinction?
Do you consider bacteria "simple"?
Do you consider the space shuttle "simple"?
What's more complex: bacteria, or the space shuttle?
1988 M.J. French on the buttercup and the locomotive
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411251245.129ea4a2%40posting.google.com
Bacteria fabricate copies of themselves.
Human minds haven't yet been able to fabricate factories that
fabricate other factories.
Human minds have made space shuttles.
Human minds haven't yet been able to create lifeforms starting with
simply chemical elements.
What's more complex: Haikouella (which appeared about 525 million
years ago), or a fern that appeared during the Carboniferous?
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang/Xidazoon-Haikouella/XidazoonHaikouella.htm
One one side is a mass mortality of Haikouella
lanceolata, thought by its describers to be the
earliest craniate-like chordate. This fish-like animal
has many similarities to the contemporaneous
Yunnanozoon lividum, but differs in several aspects:
it has a discernible heart, dorsal and ventral aorta,
gill filaments, and a neural chord.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
"When microevolution is conceded, it opens the door to ways to
continue to try to show 'with enough small changes and enough time,
anything is possible.'"
Agree with J. Huxley's "no"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
"my contention is that the creation story in Genesis was not intended
as a 'play-by-play' account of how things happened"
Richard H. on interpreting Genesis 1
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222230932.19980E-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
"How can random chance mutations (with only minor, incremental changes
which are of some benefit to an organism, then naturally selected and
passed on to offspring) account for the vast specific and complex
information contained in each cell in DNA?"
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
"How come these random chance accidents are not captured in the fossil
record? Instead of the dozen or so plausible 'transitional' fossils
which are typically used to 'prove' Darwin's tree of life, the fossil
record should be full of a vast number of transitional species (and
the even greater number of random chance mutations that don't result
in a benefit and are eliminated by natural selection) if Evolutionary
Theory is correct."
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on phylogeny trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990126225603.790598A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1977 G&E on diagrams and the uninitiated
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960722001816.872M%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1980 Gould on the tips and nodes of trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970901005523.14415B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"How can random chance alone account for the molecular machines within
the cell that have specific tasks in maintaining and replicating the
cell (each machine can fulfill its function only if all the machines
are present and functioning ~ how random is that)?"
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1999 Paul Davies on nanotools in "the intricate machine we call the
living cell"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271934.2af28f31%40posting.google.com
1985 Cairns-Smith: "Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of
'high technology', and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
"Gould, for example, was one of many that supported the idea of
punctuated equilibrium to try to explain the fossil record's
inconsistency with gradualism"
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
/////////////////////////////////////////
The word 'evolution' is such a worthless word.
"we are only arguing over the semantics of the application of the word
'evolution'"
"The problem we have today is largely due to the fact that the word
evolution means so many things.
The tactic used by materialists (with success) is to belittle anyone
questioning evolution by using a bait and switch of 'See, here is an
example of evolution [little 'e' evolution] so you are foolish not to
believe big E Evolution.'"
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
"Accepting evolution does not equate in rejecting God."
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
"Change beyond species has been observed check out www.talkorigins.org"
Meaning of "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
"You know that evolution is well established and firmly proven,
although I believe that God is the one doing the evolution"
Meaning of "evolution"?
Christopher A. Lee
>"Mutations are detrimental-- not beneficial-- to life."
A liar as well as an idiot.
What do you imagine you achieve by posting this kind of tripe, other
than to tell the world what a stupid, in-your-face idiot you are?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
1997 atheism-adherent Edward O. Wilson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com
scientific materialism explains vastly more of the
tangible world.... Its discoveries suggest that, like it
or not, we are alone. We must measure and judge
ourselves, and we will decide our own destiny.
1979 Futuyma: Freud, Marx, & "Darwin hewed the final planks
of...materialism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1155218516.328357.117720%40q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com
"the science behind evolution"
Meaning of "evolution"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
"Evolution is a fact because it has been observed in nature."
Meaning of "evolution"?
"It unifies disparate scientific fields and has extensive explanatory
power."
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211344.2639819A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
"It's been verified in thousands of experiments and observations."
Experiments such as?
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
"The fossil record also shows that life has become more complex over
time."
What do you think was responsible for the Cambrian Explosion, aka
Biology's Big Bang?
"the 'fall of evolution' has been an urban legend for decades"
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
"the Nazi's had 'God With Us' on their belt buckles"
Meaning there of "God"?
what to conclude from [Hitler]"I am doing the Lord's work"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cb79c30a-5d06-4d85-a739-1927d5170fe6%40t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
"Martin Luther was anti-Semitic, wrote a book 'On Jews and Their Lies'
where he advocated burning their synagogues and taxing them
exhorbitantly"
Luther's and Hitler's antis- were very different
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149000825.650983.94540%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"Crick"
1988 Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407251846.6acacaef%40posting.google.com
atheism-adherent Crick treatment suggestion could be solution to
Social Security funding problem
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142519644.526802.121080%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
"Gould"
Gould was a Marxist.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gfjsF3l6o15U1%40individual.net
"abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research"
in praise of eugenics and terminating defective human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1138912784.946032.323570%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and euthanasia.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
"None of those has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution."
Darwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1138716868.472338.186610%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
In Sparta, also, a form of selection
was followed, for it was enacted that all children should
be examined shortly after birth; the well-formed and
vigorous being preserved, the others left to perish.*(3)
Gould: "Haeckel.... contributed to the rise of Nazism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
"the Theory of Evolution presupposes an initial living organism"
Which arose how? Via intelligent design?
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
"quoting from Darwin 150 years ago is disingenuous; science has
advanced leaps and bounds since then"
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
"Trying to equate Darwin's knowledge of fossils with the current state
of science is misleading."
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Ager
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990509232910.38199A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"why didn't they interview Christian scientists who do primary
research and support evolution?"
Meaning of "evolution"?
"it would destroy the point they were trying to make (that evolution
is 'atheistic'"
Meaning of "evolution"?
1987 Dawkins: "the whole _point_ of the theory of evolution by
natural selection was that it provided a _non_-miraculous account of
the existence of complex adaptations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407280430.4459fca3%40posting.google.com
1982 Stebbins: "evolution [i.e. blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic
and devoid of purpose"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65%40posting.google.com
In your view, is it the case that starting with simply non-living
matter, life can come from non-living matter?
//////////////////////////////////////////
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net