The evolution of geology
Bear
no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only. They
were equally adamant that this was a fact accepted by the scientific
community. The layperson even went so far as to imply that if it is
not biology, it is not science.
A quote from, http://www.suite101.com/reference/geology_evolution
*******
Articles related to "Geology Evolution"
Evolution in Modern Science
The theory of biological evolution is the best known evolutionary idea
in modern science, however evolutionary concepts are common in all
sciences not just biology.
evolution, theory of evolution, biological evolution, geology
evolution, astronomy evolution
**********
And this one.
Upper case emphasis are mine.
******
� 1997 Geological Society of America
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/7/615
Evolution of rift basins and low-angle detachments in multilayer
analog models
A. P. Gartrell1
1 Tectonics Special Research Centre, Department of Geology and
Geophysics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western
Australia 6907, Australia
Multilayer analog models comprising a brittle upper layer (sand and
clay), a strong ductile middle layer (high-viscosity silicone putty),
and a weak ductile basal-layer (low-viscosity silicone putty) are used
to demonstrate the importance of lithospheric strength maxima in the
development of rift basins and low-angle detachments. Although a wide
range of rift geometries formed, A GENERAL EVOLUTION CAN BE DERIVED
from the experimental results. An initial period of distributed
extension is followed by localized deformation into rift basins due to
boudinage of the strong layer. Delamination at the interface between
the strong putty and weak putty layers results in the formation of
subhorizontal ductile shear zones below the strong ductile layer. This
basal shear zone alters the symmetry of the boudins and sets up a
stress regime mechanically suitable for the growth of low-angle normal
faults in the neck lines of developing rift basins. Continued
boudinage eventually tears the strong ductile layer. The brittle upper
layer is subsequently dragged over the basal ductile layer along a
series of listric detachment faults.
*****************
Perhaps these folks should consult some of the more educated and
informed people on Usenet before, making such misleading statements.
OTOH, the problem that I experienced with the "legitimate" definition
of evolution did not arise until; I began asking none biology
questions that they had no answers for them, which I find to be quite
interesting.
Bear
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
>Two people on Usenet have assured me, one of them admitted to having
>no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
>other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
>it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only. They
>were equally adamant that this was a fact accepted by the scientific
>community. The layperson even went so far as to imply that if it is
>not biology, it is not science.
>
>
>A quote from, http://www.suite101.com/reference/geology_evolution
>
>*******
>
>Articles related to "Geology Evolution"
Of course you will note that this is in the context of geology, not
merely stated without any context at all. You are doing a good job of
supporting my claim.
No. You have demonstrated that you are just another ignorant creationist
who spouts old claims that are known to be false. Nothing you have asked
will help your disproven doctrine recover from the last two centuries
that have shown your doctrine to be false.
Bear
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:34:41 -0600, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>Two people on Usenet have assured me, one of them admitted to having
>>no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
>>other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
>>it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only. They
>>were equally adamant that this was a fact accepted by the scientific
>>community. The layperson even went so far as to imply that if it is
>>not biology, it is not science.
>>
>>
>>A quote from, http://www.suite101.com/reference/geology_evolution
>>
>>*******
>>
>>Articles related to "Geology Evolution"
>
>Of course you will note that this is in the context of geology, not
>merely stated without any context at all. You are doing a good job of
>supporting my claim.
>
You bet, and you are doing a superb job of demonstrating your bias at
any expense. Did you not bother to read past the header, or, do you
find it convenient to ignore all that contradicts your "opinions",
since that is all that you have, you certainly do not provide any
additional evidence beyond your word?
"The theory of biological evolution is the best known evolutionary
idea in modern science, HOWEVER EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS ARE COMMON IN
ALL SCIENCES NOT JUST BIOLOGY.
That kind of statement is the best Free Lunch can come up with,
accusations that he cannot prove. If, I am "just another ignorant
creationist" then how can I ask you questions that you cannot answer,
what does that make you?
You know, like this one that you chose to delete because the thread
was getting too long.
"To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of
the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal
life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are
intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Since we have not the
slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of
any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair
supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types.
There are no such things as missing links. ... Missing links are
misinterpretations."[85, 88]"
And here are my questions that you refuse to answer.
I did not see where you refuted the remarks of Dr. Clark, is he a liar
also? Wow, a biology scientist no less. What was that comment that I
made earlier, something like, evolutionists, or at least some of them,
label anyone who disagrees with their views as being liars? I think
you just proved the accuracy of my statement.
"�you are just another ignorant creationist who spouts old claims that
are known to be false�"
Another accusation that you make that is false, and coming from one
who claims to be a "honest human being". That is the extent of many
of the evolutionists responses.
Quote where I have spouted a claim that is known to be false and,
provide the evidence that proves that it is false. If you do, and
can, it will be a first for you.
Bear
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
Since you have rejected all evolutionary concepts without any
understanding of them, it doesn't really matter what you claim any more.
Bear
wrote:
Is that really the best you can come up with? It was not a "claim"
that I made, it was a quote from a non-creation web site. You are
getting more and more into total irrationality.
I wonder why he did not bother to prove his accusation, after being
challenged to do so. Perhaps he is fully aware that the accusation
was false.
>>Bear
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
I did. You got defensive because I pointed out that you misused
'evolution' the same way all the other dishonest creationists do. If you
are interested in science, learn to use scientific vocabulary properly.
Don't keep making excuses for your misuse of it.
Ike E 11/16/09
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>
He means like this.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
>Ike
>
Ike E 11/23/9
news:hedom7$gbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Grow up already; you're a damn nuisance.
>
> First "day:" God establishes the rules of physics which would govern the
> creation, all summed up in the proto-atom, which explodes with
> unimaginable light and heat, filling the new universe to its expanding
> edges. The light begins to congeal into galaxies, and the darkness begins
> to reveal itself as matter and antimatter annihilate each other, leaving
> only the extra matter particles in their wake.
>
> Second "day:" The planets begin to congeal, taking on both form and
> atmospheres (bearing in mind that Genesis is an earth-centric book, but
> what was happening here was happening elsewhere in the universe, as known
> today by anyone with a better-than-third-grade education).
>
> Third "day:" The earth (as well as every other planet in the universe),
> begins to take on its surface conditions. Here, the first evolutionary
> trunk--the plant kingdom--began to take place.
>
> Fourth "day:" As the light fades from the universe in general, the OTHER
> celestial bodies (which were going through the same processes as our solar
> system) begin to reveal themselves. HERE is where CONVENTIONAL days and
> nights begin (as opposed to the macro "days and nights" that started from
> the Big Bang).
>
> Fifth "day:" The other evolutionary trunk, the animal kingdom, begins.
> (This "day" continues up through the dinosaurs, as what the prophet
> describes next are the more refined animals we have today).
>
> Sixth "day:" God brings forth the refined animals, and the top of the
> evolutionary chain, the beast man, the natural man (a.k.a. the
> "Gentiles"), generic and plural, men and women, complete the natural
> process.
>
> And this "day" is STILL in process, and Revelation declares that God did
> create, and is creating, and will continue to create anything that will be
> created until He is finished creating (i.e. the end of the universe).
>
> Seventh "day:" His rest, yet to come, and anyone who opposes His will will
> not enter into that rest, but will be locked into the singularity that is
> the universe.
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the science we're
> discovering now matches the outline given by the prophet (from an
> earth-centric viewpoint) regarding the evolutionary natural creation
> process, flat-earther, and only an idiot would miss the parallelism
> between the Bible and the science.
>
> But, of course, you think YOU are a child of the second process when
> you're not; you're a child of the first process, which is why you don't
> understand anything about the Bible, which started with a "two-tree" story
> and ends with a "two-tree" story. In fact, one of the reasons you can't
> understand the END of the Bible is that you don't understand the BEGINNING
> of it.
>
> It's only when CHILDREN such as you keep trying to hold onto your childish
> notions that the problem arises.
> [snip]
> Ike
Now try responding to the FACTS.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hedom7$gbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Grow up already; you're a damn nuisance.
>>
>
>Now try responding to the FACTS.
>
Like these.....
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, now is the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
quotes below.
Ike E 11/23/9
First "day:" God establishes the rules of physics which would govern the
Ken
wrote:
> "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>
> Ike
Waaaaaaay to late for that!!!!
Ralph
When evolution is mentioned by a creationist 99.9% of the time it is in
reference to biological evolution. Therefore, it is assumed that is what
the subject matter is when a creationist starts with their usual
bullshit! If you are referring to a different type of evolution it would
probably ease the discussion for you to specify which type to which you
refer. I realize that this would be take away your chance to be a
wounded martyr but it would help the discussion.
Ralph
This is true. So what? You're too damn ignorant to understand any of them.
>>> Evolution in Modern Science
>>>
>>> The theory of biological evolution is the best known evolutionary idea
>>> in modern science, however evolutionary concepts are common in all
>>> sciences not just biology.
>>>
>>> evolution, theory of evolution, biological evolution, geology
>>> evolution, astronomy evolution
>>>
>>> **********
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>
>>> Upper case emphasis are mine.
>>>
>>> ******
>>> � 1997 Geological Society of America
> "�you are just another ignorant creationist who spouts old claims that
> are known to be false�"
>
> Another accusation that you make that is false, and coming from one
> who claims to be a "honest human being". That is the extent of many
> of the evolutionists responses.
>
> Quote where I have spouted a claim that is known to be false and,
> provide the evidence that proves that it is false. If you do, and
> can, it will be a first for you.
>
> Bear
"Bear", in the first place Dr Clark has been dead over 50 years. The
problem in his quote appears to be one that was subsequently resolved by
Punk Eq. However, not having access to the source I could not tell if it
is in context or not. This so-called problem was in methods of evolution
not evolution itself. Let me help you out, Ted, if a quote is from a
noted biologist and it appears to disparage evolution then the
probability that the quote is a lie, is out-of context or is a
half-truth is so great that it is a certainty. Go here Ted and see the
honest with which you and your fundie friends operate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html
Lorentz
> Two people on Usenet have assured me, one of them admitted to having
> no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
> other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
> it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only.
tying together completely different concepts in an entirely
inappropriate and dishonest way.
The word "evolution" is a commonly used word even outside
science. It has many meanings. Biologists did not take the word out of
circulation. Even other scientists use the word in contexts completely
different from the way biologists use it. Evolution in its general
sense is talking about gradual change, or any change at all. However,
the theory of Darwin and its derivatives are pretty specific. The word
evolution as an evolutionary biologist uses it means "modification
with descent." However, the word evolution is still being used in its
broadest sense.
The way biologists use the word evolution is completely
different from the way an artist would use it. Saying that the word
"bat" refers to baseball, and baseball only, is sort of misleading.
Even among biologists, the word is used differently. Among zoologists,
for example, the word bat usually refers to a winged mammal. Among
sports medicine biologists, bat could actually refer to a piece of
wood. However, I think it would be dishonest to claim that the word
"bat" refers to a controversial and little known process.
Physicists refer to the "evolution" of the wave function. This is
a completely different type of evolution that an evolutionary
biologist would use. However, there really is no ambiguity when a
physicist uses the word "evolution." If the physicist is analyzing
atomic spectra, and uses the word evolution, he is clearly talking
about a wave function. If the physicist happens to be talking to a
biologist concerning natural selection, the physicist is sure the
biologist is talking about modification with descent. Especially when
dead animals are being discussed.
> were equally adamant that this was a fact accepted by the scientific
> community. The layperson even went so far as to imply that if it is
> not biology, it is not science.
As a physicist, I am appalled. Not by this person. By you. That
layperson did not mean that biologists are the only ones doing
science. I am sure that most laymen, even the dullest ones, know the
difference between physical scientists and biology. However, it
appears that you don't know the difference.
>
> A quote from,http://www.suite101.com/reference/geology_evolution
>
> *******
>
> Articles related to "Geology Evolution"
>
> Evolution in Modern Science
>
> The theory of biological evolution is the best known evolutionary idea
> in modern science, however evolutionary concepts are common in all
> sciences not just biology.
Having said all this about the honest use of words, I have to say
that this statement is also true. Ideas implicit in "descent with
modification" are used outside of biology. Biologists may have first
come out with the idea of "descent with modification" but other
scientists use ideas that are analogous. When analyzing a
communication network, one often has to use the idea that packets of
information spawn copies which are "modified with descent." Among
computer scientists, the use of "genetic algorithms" has become
popular. "Genetic algorthms" are programs that mimic the biological
process of "modification with descent." Even computer viruses,
designed by criminals, have been designed with the ability to mutate
randomly. This was intentionally copied from biological evolution.
In astronomy, we have the idea of cosmic inflation. Variations
on this model have been made with the intentional analogy to
modification with descent. I suspect your lay person, being literate,
knew about some of these applications.
>
> evolution, theory of evolution, biological evolution, geology
> evolution, astronomy evolution
>
> **********
>
> And this one.
>
> Upper case emphasis are mine.
>
> ******
> © 1997 Geological Society of America
>
> http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/7/615
>
> Evolution of rift basins and low-angle detachments in multilayer
> analog models
You are being dishonest. The "evolution" in this sentence is
being used in its broadest definition. Any system that slowly changes
can be said to evolve. However, this is not the same as "modification
with descent."
Just to avoid confusion, there is a historical connection
here. Darwin got a lot of his ideas from geology. He got his idea of
slowly changing creatures from the biologist Lydell. Lydell may have
actually referred to the evolution of rift basins. However, the
evolution of a rift basin is not the modification with descent that
Darwin finally arrived at for organisms. It is an idea that is
distantly related. They even interact, since organisms that live in
these rift basins have to modify themselves in order to survive.
So here are two uses of the word "evolution" that could
conceivably get confused. Imagine what would happen if "bats" played
"baseball". However, this is not a confusion concerning the ideas. If
you look at the description of the "evolution of rift basins," you
will see a completely different description that the evolution of
animals. There is no real confusion here. Just your legalistic
sophistry.
>
> A. P. Gartrell1
>
> 1 Tectonics Special Research Centre, Department of Geology and
> Geophysics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western
> Australia 6907, Australia
>
>
> *****************
>
> Perhaps these folks should consult some of the more educated and
> informed people on Usenet before, making such misleading statements.
>
> OTOH, the problem that I experienced with the "legitimate" definition
> of evolution did not arise until; I began asking none biology
> questions that they had no answers for them, which I find to be quite
> interesting.
>
> Bear
Start using the phrase "modification with descent." That was the
phrase Darwin liked to use. He only used the word "evolution" maybe
twice in all his writings. He used the phrase "modification with
descent" very often. Although most biologists refer to the word
"evolution" when they mean "modification with descent," I have come
back to the phrase "modification with descent". The problem is that I
do work in multidisciplinary fields where the word "evolution" can
have several meanings.
Bear
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 1:34�ｿｽpm, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Two people on Usenet have assured me, one of them admitted to having
>> no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
>> other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
>> it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only. �ｿｽ
>> community. �ｿｽThe layperson even went so far as to imply that if it is
>> evolution, �ｿｽtheory of evolution, �ｿｽbiological evolution, �ｿｽgeology
>> evolution, �ｿｽastronomy evolution
>>
>> **********
>>
>> And this one. �ｿｽ
>>
>> Upper case emphasis are mine.
>>
>> ******
>> �ｿｽ 1997 Geological Society of America
>> informed people on Usenet before, making such misleading statements. �ｿｽ
>>
>> OTOH, the problem that I experienced with the "legitimate" definition
>> of evolution did not arise until; I began asking none biology
>> questions that they had no answers for them, which I find to be quite
>> interesting.
>>
>> Bear
> Start using the phrase "modification with descent." That was the
>phrase Darwin liked to use. He only used the word "evolution" maybe
>twice in all his writings. He used the phrase "modification with
>descent" very often. Although most biologists refer to the word
>"evolution" when they mean "modification with descent," I have come
>back to the phrase "modification with descent". The problem is that I
>do work in multidisciplinary fields where the word "evolution" can
>have several meanings.
If I may ask if would you clarify who your post is in response to? If
it is to Bear, then I will respond to your post, if not, I will leave
it for the other person. Thanks.
Bear
Cory Albrecht
>>> Two people on Usenet have assured me, one of them admitted to having
>>> no credentials but being well informed and, an honest human being, the
>>> other one supposedly, holding a PHD, that when evolution is mentioned,
>>> it is referring to the field of biology and to that field only.
>>>
>>> **********
>>>
>>> And this one.
>>>
>>> Upper case emphasis are mine.
>>>
>>> ******
>>> of evolution did not arise until; I began asking none biology
>>> questions that they had no answers for them, which I find to be quite
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> Bear
>> Start using the phrase "modification with descent." That was the
>> phrase Darwin liked to use. He only used the word "evolution" maybe
>> twice in all his writings. He used the phrase "modification with
>> descent" very often. Although most biologists refer to the word
>> "evolution" when they mean "modification with descent," I have come
>> back to the phrase "modification with descent". The problem is that I
>> do work in multidisciplinary fields where the word "evolution" can
>> have several meanings.
>
> If I may ask if would you clarify who your post is in response to? If
> it is to Bear, then I will respond to your post, if not, I will leave
> it for the other person. Thanks.
>
> Bear
Well, he did quote only your post, and his intro line did say "On Nov
22, 1:34 pm, Bear<tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:", and he was also
addressing what you said and the only Usenet message-id in the
References: header was that of your post, so I think it's a pretty good
bet to whom he was responding.
Cory Albrecht
You do realize, of course, that "evolution" at it's base just means
"change over time"? So many topics can be about "evolutionary" processes.
However, as Free Lunch is is not saying that such is not true. What he
is trying to point out to that when the word "evolution" used without
some sort of contextual qualifier it almost always refers biological
evolution and the theory explaining it, and that other uses of the term
are almost always preceded by some sort context that indicates the
subject being discussed is not biological evolution.
With the text you gave, Free Lunch is not trying to say that the word
never occurs in geology, but that contextualization he is talking about
does happen and how your text is an example of that. When people talk
about (non-qualified) "evolution", they're almost always talking about
biological evolution rather than "stellar evolution" or "the evolution
of musical styles over the Baroque Era".
Like it or lump it, but that is what common usage has become.
A subsidiary point that Free Lunch is making is that creationists quite
often engage in the erroneous conflation of cosmological evolution,
geological evolution and more into biological evolution, as if
"evolution" were actually some giant ueber-theory that explains not only
the cosmic background microwave radiation but also why we see this
pattern from Hyracotherium to Merychippus to modern horse.
Ike E 11/23/9
"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8ort6x...@fenris.cjb.net...
[snip]
> A subsidiary point that Free Lunch is making is that creationists quite
> often engage in the erroneous conflation of cosmological evolution,
> geological evolution and more into biological evolution, as if "evolution"
> were actually some giant ueber-theory that explains not only the cosmic
> background microwave radiation but also why we see this pattern from
> Hyracotherium to Merychippus to modern horse.
And they would almost be right, but for the fact that they think that the
whole affair was a series of "fortunate accidents" rather than a carefully
designed plan.
Ike
Cory Albrecht
I think you need to work on your grammar. The "they" in your paragraph
needs an antecedent, which coming right after my paragraph would make
that be "creationists". Some how I doubt that it's the creationists who
see things as a series of fortunate accidents.
If you want to have faith in intelligent design, that's nice, just
please don't waste our time here by asserting it is fact.
Ike E 11/23/9
It IS a fact.
Always was.
It's the dufuses who don't know how to read the Bible who can't get it
straight in their heads.
First Genesis prophecy: Man, generic and plural, comes at the end of the
evolutionary sequence.
Second Genesis prophecy: Adam, specific and singular, comes BEFORE all the
other living things.
Two different stories. Two different definitions of "mankind." One natural,
one supernatural. One physical, the other spiritual.
When the two got together, THAT'S when the trouble started.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Time to grow up, little Cory, and stop reading prophecy as if it were a
bedtime story.
Ike
Free Lunch
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:842st6x...@fenris.cjb.net...
>> Ike E 11/23/9 wrote, on 09-11-23 09:51 PM:
>>> "Cory Albrecht"<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:k8ort6x...@fenris.cjb.net...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> A subsidiary point that Free Lunch is making is that creationists quite
>>>> often engage in the erroneous conflation of cosmological evolution,
>>>> geological evolution and more into biological evolution, as if
>>>> "evolution"
>>>> were actually some giant ueber-theory that explains not only the cosmic
>>>> background microwave radiation but also why we see this pattern from
>>>> Hyracotherium to Merychippus to modern horse.
>>>
>>> And they would almost be right, but for the fact that they think that the
>>> whole affair was a series of "fortunate accidents" rather than a
>>> carefully
>>> designed plan.
>>
>> I think you need to work on your grammar. The "they" in your paragraph
>> needs an antecedent, which coming right after my paragraph would make that
>> be "creationists". Some how I doubt that it's the creationists who see
>> things as a series of fortunate accidents.
>>
>> If you want to have faith in intelligent design, that's nice, just please
>> don't waste our time here by asserting it is fact.
>
>It IS a fact.
Well, since you claim it is a fact, you must be able to provide evidence
to support your claim. That would make you unique, since the high
priests of Intelligent Design over at the Discovery Institute have none
at all.
>Always was.
Show us.
>It's the dufuses who don't know how to read the Bible who can't get it
>straight in their heads.
I can read the Bible. It's not useful here. It has nothing to do with
the history of life on earth.
>First Genesis prophecy: Man, generic and plural, comes at the end of the
>evolutionary sequence.
That is clearly not what the Bible says, but go ahead.
>Second Genesis prophecy: Adam, specific and singular, comes BEFORE all the
>other living things.
That makes no sense at all. Are you sure you want to be invoking
someone's scriptures to support your alleged claim that intelligent
design is a fact?
>Two different stories. Two different definitions of "mankind." One natural,
>one supernatural. One physical, the other spiritual.
Fascinating, but not remotely related to the question at hand (or to
what the Bible says).
>When the two got together, THAT'S when the trouble started.
>
>1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
>thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
>
>Time to grow up, little Cory, and stop reading prophecy as if it were a
>bedtime story.
So, you are effectively telling us that you know that there is no
evidence to support the claims about intelligent design.
Lorentz
> Bear wrote, on 09-11-23 07:35 PM:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:34:12 -0800 (PST), Lorentz
> >> I nominate you for the "mislead and misquote" award. You are
> >> tying together completely different concepts in an entirely
> >> inappropriate and dishonest way.
> > If I may ask if would you clarify who your post is in response to? If
> > it is to Bear, then I will respond to your post, if not, I will leave
> > it for the other person. Thanks.
>
> > Bear
>
> Well, he did quote only your post, and his intro line did say "On Nov
> 22, 1:34 pm, Bear<tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:", and he was also
> addressing what you said and the only Usenet message-id in the
> References: header was that of your post, so I think it's a pretty good
> bet to whom he was responding.
:So you second the nomination ?-)