The sciences of evolution
Bear
what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
applied to the field of biology.
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.
The following quote is an excerpt from,
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html
Upper case emphasis is mine.
*****************
A third theory of life's origin is known as CHEMICAL EVOLUTION. In
this idea, pre-biological changes slowly transform simple atoms and
molecules into the more complex chemicals needed to produce life.
Favored by most scientists today, the central premise of CHEMICAL
EVOLUTION stipulates that life arose naturally from nonlife. In this
sense, THE THEORIES OF CHEMICAL EVOLUTION AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
ARE SIMILAR, but the timescales differ. CHEMICAL EVOLUTION doesn't
occur suddenly; instead, it proceeds more gradually, eventually
building complex structures from simpler ones. This modern theory then
suggests that life originated on Earth by means of a rather slow
evolution of nonliving matter. How slowly and when precisely we are
unsure.
*****************
There it is, four references in one paragraph to "chemical evolution",
and these people consider themselves scientists. What say you, Free
Lunch?
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:
>The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
>what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
>applied to the field of biology.
Once again, you demonstrate that you failed to understand the point. The
point is that scientists normally use the word 'evolution' by itself in
regard to biological evolution. Yes, there are times when the word is
applied to other uses and the context is either very clear or there is
an adjective that shows that. That is what I told you earlier. That is
what you are misrepresenting now.
It is only anti-science creationists who call every discovery they
dislike 'evolution'.
Once again, there is a clear context. It is not like the creationist who
calls everything from the Big Bang forward 'evolution' because it shows
that his doctrines are false. Go, learn something.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:53:28 -0600, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote
> in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
> >what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
> >applied to the field of biology.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate that you failed to understand the point. The
> point is that scientists normally use the word 'evolution' by itself in
> regard to biological evolution. Yes, there are times when the word is
> applied to other uses and the context is either very clear or there is
> an adjective that shows that. That is what I told you earlier. That is
> what you are misrepresenting now.
>
> It is only anti-science creationists who call every discovery they
> dislike 'evolution'.
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
> >The following quote is an excerpt from,
>
>
> >Upper case emphasis is mine.
>
> >*****************
>
> >A third theory of life's origin is known as CHEMICAL EVOLUTION. In
> >this idea, pre-biological changes slowly transform simple atoms and
> >molecules into the more complex chemicals needed to produce life.
> >Favored by most scientists today, the central premise of CHEMICAL
> >EVOLUTION stipulates that life arose naturally from nonlife. In this
> >sense, THE THEORIES OF CHEMICAL EVOLUTION AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
> >ARE SIMILAR, but the timescales differ. CHEMICAL EVOLUTION doesn't
> >occur suddenly; instead, it proceeds more gradually, eventually
> >building complex structures from simpler ones. This modern theory then
> >suggests that life originated on Earth by means of a rather slow
> >evolution of nonliving matter. How slowly and when precisely we are
> >unsure.
>
> >*****************
> >There it is, four references in one paragraph to "chemical evolution",
> >and these people consider themselves scientists. What say you, Free
> >Lunch?
>
> >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
>
There is fundamentally 2 types of Evolution : Macro and Micro.
Micro are small biological changes WITHIN the SAME kind or family.
Macro asserts that its possible to jump from one kind or family to a
totally different kind., like Dog to Cat / Whale to Cow , Ape to
Human , et al.. The latter defies established laws of real science
such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which has an effect on
everything known to man and is therefore a religious belief
masquerading as science . Before you even move to the topic of Macro
Evolution, you must first establish that Abiogenesis is true....to
which the worlds foremost ATHEIST Biologist Scholar and CoFounder of
the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, agreed that the probability is
to the tune of 10x40,000 th power . Therefore, it never happened,
never could, Macro Evolution is a fraud, and God is real. Its just
that simple of a conclusion.
Tim Miller
> There is fundamentally 2 types of Evolution : Macro and Micro.
Wrong AGAIN. There's only ONE type. Your "distinction" is merely
the LATEST straw grasped at by the ignorant.
Tim Miller
> which the worlds foremost ATHEIST Biologist Scholar and CoFounder of
> the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, agreed that the probability is
> to the tune of 10x40,000 th power .
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
The Evil Fires of Hell are waiting for you, sonny!
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Wrong, clearly you haven't taken any science classes that cover
evolution.
>Micro are small biological changes WITHIN the SAME kind or family.
A meaningless claim.
>Macro asserts that its possible to jump from one kind or family to a
>totally different kind., like Dog to Cat / Whale to Cow , Ape to
>Human , et al..
An erroneous claim. Dogs and cats are descended from a relatively recent
common ancestor. Both diverged but also maintained many common
attributes. Same with cattle and whales and the great apes (including
humans).
> The latter defies established laws of real science
>such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which has an effect on
>everything known to man and is therefore a religious belief
>masquerading as science .
Though your claim is false. It does not defy those observations in the
least. You would know that if you knew any physics, chemistry or biology
instead of just repeating the falsehoods that are taught to you by
others selling false doctrines.
>Before you even move to the topic of Macro
>Evolution, you must first establish that Abiogenesis is true
Nope. Though we know that there was not life on this planet at one time
and that there is now.
>....to
>which the worlds foremost ATHEIST Biologist Scholar and CoFounder of
>the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, agreed that the probability is
>to the tune of 10x40,000 th power . Therefore, it never happened,
>never could, Macro Evolution is a fraud, and God is real. Its just
>that simple of a conclusion.
Thanks for repeating that lie again after being corrected on it over and
over. It's as if you want to be caught lying. Is lying one of the
sacraments in your religion?
Bear
wrote:
According to Free Lunch, no one has every taken a science class, if
they dare to question evolution. That seems like a perfectly logical
and intelligent conclusion.
>>Micro are small biological changes WITHIN the SAME kind or family.
>
>A meaningless claim.
>
No explanation, no rebuttal, only an assertion, very convincing.
>>Macro asserts that its possible to jump from one kind or family to a
>>totally different kind., like Dog to Cat / Whale to Cow , Ape to
>>Human , et al..
>
>An erroneous claim. Dogs and cats are descended from a relatively recent
>common ancestor. Both diverged but also maintained many common
>attributes. Same with cattle and whales and the great apes (including
>humans).
>
Wow, look at all the evidence and examples that he presents to
substantiate his claims.
>> The latter defies established laws of real science
>>such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which has an effect on
>>everything known to man and is therefore a religious belief
>>masquerading as science .
>
>Though your claim is false. It does not defy those observations in the
>least. You would know that if you knew any physics, chemistry or biology
>instead of just repeating the falsehoods that are taught to you by
>others selling false doctrines.
>
So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
questions.
**********
"There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
annihilated each other and created light."
"Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
*************
Now the questions.
20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
is that incorrect?
21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
they created?
22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
know there was any in the first place and what did it consist of?
23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
amount of light"?
24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
suggested earlier, what was left to evolve over the billions of
years?
25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
matter, is that incorrect?
27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
Now with all of those science classes that Free Lunch has taken, I am
sure these questions will be a cakewalk for him to answer. So come on
Free Lunch, really dazzle us with your brilliance.
Are there any takers that he will ignore these questions?
>>Before you even move to the topic of Macro
>>Evolution, you must first establish that Abiogenesis is true
>
>Nope. Though we know that there was not life on this planet at one time
>and that there is now.
>
>>....to
>>which the worlds foremost ATHEIST Biologist Scholar and CoFounder of
>>the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, agreed that the probability is
>>to the tune of 10x40,000 th power . Therefore, it never happened,
>>never could, Macro Evolution is a fraud, and God is real. Its just
>>that simple of a conclusion.
>
>Thanks for repeating that lie again after being corrected on it over and
>over. It's as if you want to be caught lying. Is lying one of the
>sacraments in your religion?
This is a great argument by Dawkins who basically says that the
possibility of life by chance is impossible, however, since he is not
going to accept any divine being, he chooses to believe the
impossibility that does not offend him. Great logic.
"It is true, Dawkins responds, that the probability of life having
arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo
Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap
yard. But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent
designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747?
After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a
Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created. Evolution, Dawkins
suggests, provides the only coherent alternative to both blind chance
and 'intelligent design' because it creates complexity through
innumerable small steps, each of which is 'slightly improbable, but
not prohibitively so.'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3655792/I-dont-believe-in-Richard-Dawkins.html
Bear
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:59:27 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Well, Bear, if you pay attention here, you will notice that IlBeBauck
has a long history of selling his anti-science doctrines here. He
routinely misrepresents the state of science today and never has
repented of the false claims he has made here. Feel free to pick his
side if you like.
>>>Micro are small biological changes WITHIN the SAME kind or family.
>>
>>A meaningless claim.
>>
>No explanation, no rebuttal, only an assertion, very convincing.
What's to rebut. He made a claim that he didn't bother to support. Why
do you think it is my duty to chase down each of his lies when you don't
seem to question his lies?
>>>Macro asserts that its possible to jump from one kind or family to a
>>>totally different kind., like Dog to Cat / Whale to Cow , Ape to
>>>Human , et al..
>>
>>An erroneous claim. Dogs and cats are descended from a relatively recent
>>common ancestor. Both diverged but also maintained many common
>>attributes. Same with cattle and whales and the great apes (including
>>humans).
>>
>Wow, look at all the evidence and examples that he presents to
>substantiate his claims.
Exactly, IlBeBauck offered no evidence at all.
>>> The latter defies established laws of real science
>>>such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which has an effect on
>>>everything known to man and is therefore a religious belief
>>>masquerading as science .
>>
>>Though your claim is false. It does not defy those observations in the
>>least. You would know that if you knew any physics, chemistry or biology
>>instead of just repeating the falsehoods that are taught to you by
>>others selling false doctrines.
>>
>So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
>statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
>questions.
>
>**********
>
>"There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
>annihilated each other and created light."
Did you start at the beginning of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe section, the page called Cosmology under Big Bang Theory?
<http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/>
There is more background about the probe at:
<http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe>
>"Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
>antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
>some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
I find it much easier to make sense of problems after I have read more
background.
>*************
>Now the questions.
>
>20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
>is that incorrect?
As far as I know, we currently have no method of creating or destroying
matter, though we can transform it to and from energy. We do know that
matter pops in and out of existence in the universe and that we do not
know what was happening at the beginning of the big bang.
>21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
>they created?
The laws of nature are understood to have existed since the first Planck
interval. Our current physical models break down before that point.
>22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
>know there was any in the first place and what did it consist of?
* Positron
* Antiproton
* Antineutron
They are created in high energy collisions, both natural and artificial.
>23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
>matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
>amount of light"?
That is what it says.
>24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
>suggested earlier, what was left to evolve over the billions of
>years?
The universe is what was left to develop.
>25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
Photons.
>26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
>matter, is that incorrect?
Antimatter and gravity are not matter in the traditional sense.
>27 If, my assumption is correct, then where did all the matter come
>from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
Mostly, it came from what expanded in the Big Bang, though questions
about the state of the universe at the beginning have not yet been
answered and may not be answerable.
>Now with all of those science classes that Free Lunch has taken, I am
>sure these questions will be a cakewalk for him to answer. So come on
>Free Lunch, really dazzle us with your brilliance.
>
>Are there any takers that he will ignore these questions?
I don't think you are remotely interested in the answers. If you had
been, you would have bothered to read the stuff at NASA's website that
explains it.
>>>Before you even move to the topic of Macro
>>>Evolution, you must first establish that Abiogenesis is true
>>
>>Nope. Though we know that there was not life on this planet at one time
>>and that there is now.
>>
>>>....to
>>>which the worlds foremost ATHEIST Biologist Scholar and CoFounder of
>>>the DNA structure, Dr. Francis Crick, agreed that the probability is
>>>to the tune of 10x40,000 th power . Therefore, it never happened,
>>>never could, Macro Evolution is a fraud, and God is real. Its just
>>>that simple of a conclusion.
>>
>>Thanks for repeating that lie again after being corrected on it over and
>>over. It's as if you want to be caught lying. Is lying one of the
>>sacraments in your religion?
>
>This is a great argument by Dawkins who basically says that the
>possibility of life by chance is impossible, however, since he is not
>going to accept any divine being, he chooses to believe the
>impossibility that does not offend him. Great logic.
But life does not appear by chance. It appears in specific locations
following clear chemical behavior.
jrh
news:49ed7399-81f5-44b0...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 1:04�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:53:28 -0600, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to
>> >refute what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution
>> >only applied to the field of biology.
>> Once again, you demonstrate that you failed to understand the point.
>> The point is that scientists normally use the word 'evolution' by
>> itself in regard to biological evolution. Yes, there are times when
>> the word is applied to other uses and the context is either very
>> clear or there is an adjective that shows that. That is what I told
>> you earlier. That is what you are misrepresenting now.
>> It is only anti-science creationists who call every discovery they
>> dislike 'evolution'.
>>> 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.
>>> The following quote is an excerpt from,
>>> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text
Getting an automata to solve anything requires two things,
the rules and the initial state. One can make a logical system
that follows simple rules with a complex initial state or one can
have complex rules and a simple initial state.
Atheists/Evolutionists believe God can be eliminated from the
explanation by proving life's initial state is embedded in
the rules governing reality. This isn't a simpler solution, it's
more complex. It's much more difficult to embed self initialization
than to impose it.
It may be impossible for living cells to form from unguided
chemical reactions, a violation of non computability. If reality
could self generate living things it wouldn't diminish the need
for a Creator, it would increase it!
jrh
Ike E 11/16/09
"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:t02jg5pnrb61ivnel...@4ax.com...
> The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
> what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
> applied to the field of biology.
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
AusShane
wrote:
> "Bear" <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote in message
Err no it doesn't - you must have been reading this book - here's
another viewpoint.
“The Genesis Enigma”
By jaycueaitch
[BPSDB]In today’s METRO the 60 second interview is with Dr Andrew
Parker who claims that the Genesis story matches the history of the
Universe so accurately that it could only have been written with
divine intervention. When I went to Sunday School I don’t recall them
mentioning which verses outlined the creation of particles and nucleii
but it’s been a while so I thought I would take a closer look. I’ll be
working from the King James version.
Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 reads:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”
Oh dear. This verse does rather suggest that Earth is as old as the
Universe. In fact the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old whereas
Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Both figures are accurate to
+/- 1%.
Verses 3 – 5 read:
“And God said Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the Darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
Again this makes it clear that the first ever photons illuminated
Earth, suggesting it was present at the Big Bang, which does not
really match scientific understanding.
Just to hammer home the point, the writers of Genesis clearly believed
that Earth is older than every other body in the Universe because God
does not get round to creating the rest of the Universe until the
fourth day:
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”
(verse 16)
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day”
(verse 19)
So according to Genesis Earth is older than the Sun. Not a match with
the history of the Universe then. As far as cosmology is concerned,
Parker’s notion bites the dust.
Never mind. Parker is a biologist, so perhaps he is referring to the
evolution of life on Earth rather than the history of the early
universe. Life first gets a mention in verse 11:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after his kind…”
So the first ever life was land plants. Not single cellular organisms.
Not even aquatic plants. Land plants. This does not match the fossil
record which is inaccurate enough to sink his idea but even better,
verse 13 males it clear that this happpened before the formation of
the Sun so I am afraid Parker’s notion is an EPIC FAIL.
Ike E 11/16/09
[snip]
> So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
> statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
> questions.
>
> **********
>
> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
> annihilated each other and created light."
>
> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>
> *************
> Now the questions.
>
> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
> is that incorrect?
No.
Matter can be destroyed by antimatter, which releases energy.
> 21 "when nature", when were the laws of nature created and how were
> they created?
"Nature" was created he moment that God said "in the beginning," for the
first thing He had to define was the rules of the game.
None of that in any way disputes the FACTS of the evolutionary universe.
> 22 "no antimatter", if there was no antimatter left, how do they
> know there was any in the first place and what did it consist of?
It probably involves a whole shitload of calculations that are beyond your
feeble comprehension.
> 23 Is it saying there was matter and antimatter, a tiny bit more
> matter, they met and destroyed one another and that left "a tremendous
> amount of light"?
Yes, actually: About one billion antimatter particles to every billion and
ONE matter particles.
> 24 If matter and antimatter destroyed one another, as the article
> suggested earlier, what was left to evolve over the billions of
> years?
THE ONE MATTER PARTICLE PER BILLION, moron.
> 25 What did the "tremendous amount of light" consist of?
The energy released from the compression, then detonation, of this universe.
> 26 I was under the impression that nothing could exist without
> matter, is that incorrect?
Probably, as you are incorrect about every other thing in the Bible AND in
the world.
> 27 If, my assumption is correct
It's not.
> , then where did all the matter come
> from for the universe as we know it to be formed?
From the collapse of the universe.
> Now with all of those science classes that Free Lunch has taken, I am
> sure these questions will be a cakewalk for him to answer. So come on
> Free Lunch, really dazzle us with your brilliance.
Lord knows you're doing so with your....NOT.
[snip the rest of the ignorant dawdle]
Ike
Ike E 11/16/09
"AusShane" <qua...@live.com> wrote in message
news:1e7717b7-a329-48a2...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> [BPSDB]In today�s METRO the 60 second interview is with Dr Andrew
> Parker who claims that the Genesis story matches the history of the
> Universe so accurately that it could only have been written with
> divine intervention. When I went to Sunday School I don�t recall them
> mentioning which verses outlined the creation of particles and nucleii
> but it�s been a while so I thought I would take a closer look. I�ll be
> working from the King James version.
Typical asinine assertions of someone reading the first Genesis account too
rigidly.
You have to remember that we're talking about some crude-minded prophet (for
who else around to record the beginning of the universe), recording an
earth-centric prophecy (i.e. ONLY from the perspective of the results HERE,
not anywhere else in the universe), and describing what he barely had
language to describe.
The AMAZING part is the prophets macro- and micro-definitions of "days"
within the same prophecy.
The DUMBFOUNDING part is that idiots today still think the prophecy is about
literal 24-hour days.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:t02jg5pnrb61ivnel...@4ax.com...
>> The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
>> what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
>> applied to the field of biology.
>
>Grow up already;
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
outstanding qualifications.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now 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.
[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
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:22:46 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:t02jg5pnrb61ivnel...@4ax.com...
>>> The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
>>> what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
>>> applied to the field of biology.
>>
>>Grow up already;
>
>
>
...to demonstrate what an "antichristian" is.
[snip]
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:i3njg55e3gdd3k303...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
>> statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
>> questions.
>>
>> **********
>>
>> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
>> annihilated each other and created light."
>>
>> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
>> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
>> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>>
>> *************
>> Now the questions.
>>
>> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
>> is that incorrect?
>
>No.
>
Thank you.
Ike E 11/23/9
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:27:52 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:i3njg55e3gdd3k303...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
>>> statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> **********
>>>
>>> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
>>> annihilated each other and created light."
>>>
>>> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
>>> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
>>> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>>>
>>> *************
>>> Now the questions.
>>>
>>> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
>>> is that incorrect?
>>
>>No.
Now try responding to the FACTS.
Ike
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:f23lg5p0ehla2btqr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:22:46 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:t02jg5pnrb61ivnel...@4ax.com...
>>>> The purpose of my posts, two previous ones and this one, is to refute
>>>> what I was assured by two anti-creationists that evolution only
>>>> applied to the field of biology.
>>>
>>>Grow up already;
>>
>>
>>
>> Trying to do my part...
>
>...to demonstrate
to the public Ike's outstanding qualifications.
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:c63lg51se5bl649lg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:27:52 -0600, "Ike E 11/16/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:i3njg55e3gdd3k303...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> So you know physics, eh? Then lay it on us and explain how the
>>>> statements from NASA below are true and then answer a couple of
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>> **********
>>>>
>>>> "There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they
>>>> annihilated each other and created light."
>>>>
>>>> "Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than
>>>> antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with
>>>> some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light."
>>>>
>>>> *************
>>>> Now the questions.
>>>>
>>>> 20 "some matter", I thought matter could not be made nor destroyed,
>>>> is that incorrect?
>>>
>>>No.
>
>Now try responding to the FACTS.
>
Ike E 11/23/9
Ike E 11/23/9
Ken
> There is fundamentally 2 types of Evolution (endless BS snipped)
You have GOT to be the dumbest Mofo alive today.
How you have survived this long living in your state of infinite
stupidity is truely a miracle worthy of recognition from the Vatican
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I've been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have
to be the dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in that time
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Grow up
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
Ralph
Yes Teddy, there are many types of evolution, none of which, it appears,
do you have the first clue as to how they operate. Run along home now
and tell your "Pastor" how you asked the tough questions no one could
answer and I'm sure he will give you a gold star.
Ralph
***PLONK***
Ike E 11/23/9
> ...to make modern "Christianity" an embarrassment to God.
> signed
> Bear
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:59elg593bahv47g85...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:30 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Grow up
>>
>> Trying to do my part...
>
>> ...to
keep the public informed of Ike's outstanding qualifications.
Ike E 11/23/9
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:53:59 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:59elg593bahv47g85...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:30 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grow up
>>>
>>> Trying to do my part...
>>
>>> ...to
>
> ...of how to show one's ass in public.
> signed
> Bear
Bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:0nimg5pt41omovegp...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:53:59 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:59elg593bahv47g85...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:30 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Grow up
>>>>
Trying to do my part in keeping the public informed of Ike's
Ralph
Thanks Ted.
Bear
Don't mention it, I'm just trying to do my public service.
Bear
Cory Albrecht
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:23:18 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bear"<tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:0nimg5pt41omovegp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:53:59 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bear"<tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:59elg593bahv47g85...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:30 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
>>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
You two obviously have a long history in other fora, so please either
get a room, or grow up.