Protocell mythology
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
imagination when the facts don't fill in the
imagined picture?
I speak of the fabled "proto-cell" and other such
"unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
how life came to be.
Unfortunately, this "proto-cell" does not fit into
the category of "observation" and"repetition."
Go back to your grade school science textbooks and
look up science.
No observation - no science.
Hathaway5353
"Rocky, watch me pull a proto-cell out of my
hat!"
(Roar!!)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Boikat
>
> Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> imagined picture?
It's an informed hypothesis.
>
> I speak of the fabled "proto-cell" and other such
> "unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
> how life came to be.
"Contrivances" based upon suggested pathways
suggested by the evidence.
>
> Unfortunately, this "proto-cell" does not fit into
> the category of "observation" and"repetition."
We are still working on it. are you still stuck
in the rut of ignorance that if something is not
fully understood, it's not scientific to
investigate it? Or are you out there with the
other nay sayers telling Orvil and Wilber that
heavier than air flight is impossible when they
drag the first failed attempt back to the hanger?
Move back to acave then, why don't you?
>
> Go back to your grade school science textbooks and
> look up science.
Irony meter detonation if five, four, three,
two... ejecting ....=>Booom<=
>
> No observation - no science.
Have supporting evidence, have science.
Crawl back under your rock with karl Hathaway.
your arguments are as lacking in content and fact,
as always.
>
> Hathaway5353
>
Boikat
Sean Ellis
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>[snip]
Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
imagination when the facts don't fill in the
imagined picture?
I speak of the fabled "god" and other such
"unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
how life came to be.
Unfortunately, this "god" does not fit into
the category of "observation" and"repetition."
Go back to your grade school science textbooks and
look up science.
No observation - no science.
Hath-no-way1471
"Rocky, watch me pull a 'god' out of my hat!"
(Roar!!)
Sean
"Every prick is a prick for Jesus" - Paul Merton
URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2448/atheism.html
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
cape.com>,
sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
wrote:
> Just for fun...
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> imagined picture?
>
(Chop)
Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
advised words got chopped. I told Cole
that I turned atheists arguments around
and used them and consequently I DID
NOT tell him that I went around like a
peevish silly mimick.
Your arguments are not satisfactory on
the other hand in that this ordered world
relects an order. A creation demands a
creator. Every scientific observation
demonstrates this fact. If you want a
manufactured item such as a car, you go
to the car manufacturer. But the human
body in millions if not billions of
timesmore complex than a car. The
human eye is a more precise instrument
than a camera. A camera needs to have
different types of film for different
conditions. It needs special lens that
don't even produce the sort of high
resolution images that your brain
obtains. And here these sad come lately
evolutionists are telling us that the
human eye evolved from matter,without
the aid of any intelligent creator.
I say pure bunk.
Hathaway5353
>
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2448/atheism.html
Stewart Dean
>Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
>imagination when the facts don't fill in the
>imagined picture?
>
>I speak of the fabled "proto-cell" and other such
>"unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
>how life came to be.
The 'proto-cell' is currently the best contendor. There is much
pointing it's way even if we havnt seen it. It does fit in with a
theory of cause and effect but has yet to be proved. Currently the
protocell wins in the probablity stakes and a lot of work has to be
done to work out the details and make the theory more than 'well we
reacon this happened'.
Any other evidence that points in another direction is always welcome.
Got any alternatives? And dont say a god did it as if it did it did a
very good job hiding the evidence and then putting down lots of false
stuff.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Stewart Dean
> And here these sad come lately
>evolutionists are telling us that the
>human eye evolved from matter,without
>the aid of any intelligent creator.
>
>I say pure bunk.
>
>Hathaway5353
The eye has evolved several times through the histroy of nature.
Squids eyes, for example, evolved differently. In some ways the human
eye is less well designed, simply because we have the nerves
connections on the inside of the eye.
Also it interesting to note that in our quest we've found that
artificial intelligence is next to impossible to design.
Instead we're mimicking the way nature does things and evolving minds,
and whole artificial creatures. So if it works for us why not in non
artificial conditions.
Lastly get a bag of sand and a flat surface. From a fixed point poor
the sand onto the surface. Note how the sand will form a cone nearly
perfectly round. Did you create that cone, make it round. No cause
and effect did. You are not the creator of that sand pile, mearly one
of the causes.
If evolution is bunk then it's bunk that saves lives, designs
airoplanes, fine tunes computer programs and creatures natural
behavour when simulated.
If you want a good book to rage against have a go at 'The Blind
Watchmaker' it goes on in great depths about the folly of design vs
nature.
Life is very 'bottom up' - but don't take my word for it.
Jim Kinney
"A creation requires a creator"
Does anyone else pick up on the circular arguement
here? First it is stated that life is a 'creation'.
I agree that a creation requires a creator. Thus
there must be a creator because there is life. How do
we know that life is a creation? Because we just
proved that there is a creator. Aaarrrggghhh! This
makes my head hurt. If life is not a creation (in
theory of course) then there is no need for a creator,
and thus this could have all happened without the help
of a supreme being... Except for J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs of
course.
-Rev. Pope Impious XXIII, ULC, RSVP, EIEIO
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
Bonz
wrote:
>In article
><36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
>cape.com>,
> sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
>wrote:
>> Just for fun...
>>
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>>
>> Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
>> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
>> imagined picture?
>>
>
>(Chop)
>
>Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
>advised words got chopped. I told Cole
>that I turned atheists arguments around
>and used them and consequently I DID
>NOT tell him that I went around like a
>peevish silly mimick.
>
>Your arguments are not satisfactory on
>the other hand in that this ordered world
>relects an order. A creation demands a
>creator.
Does it stamp its widdle feets until it gets one?
>Every scientific observation
>demonstrates this fact. If you want a
>manufactured item such as a car, you go
>to the car manufacturer. But the human
>body in millions if not billions of
>timesmore complex than a car. The
>human eye is a more precise instrument
>than a camera. A camera needs to have
>different types of film for different
>conditions. It needs special lens that
>don't even produce the sort of high
>resolution images that your brain
>obtains. And here these sad come lately
>evolutionists are telling us that the
>human eye evolved from matter,without
>the aid of any intelligent creator.
Yep. What's your problem with that? Other than being an idiot, I
mean.
>
>I say pure bunk.
OK, noted. The guy who doesn't know the difference between a
mean, mode, and median thinks it is bunk.
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
> cape.com>,
> sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
> wrote:
> > Just for fun...
> >
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >[snip]
> >
> > Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
> > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > imagined picture?
> >
>
> (Chop)
>
> Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> advised words got chopped. I told Cole
> that I turned atheists arguments around
> and used them and consequently I DID
> NOT tell him that I went around like a
> peevish silly mimick.
>
> Your arguments are not satisfactory on
> the other hand in that this ordered world
> relects an order. A creation demands a
> demonstrates this fact.
Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
creator first.
Can you say "circularity" ?
> If you want a
> manufactured item such as a car, you go
> to the car manufacturer.
But planets, mountains, animals are not "manufactured" in the sense that a car
is manufactured. We observe car factories where workers, according to plans by
engineers manufacture cars. Since we do not observe similar processes with
planets etc. the analogy fails.
But the human
> body in millions if not billions of
> timesmore complex than a car.
The rings of Saturn are millions times more complex as well if you include the
motion of every piece of rock.
The
> human eye is a more precise instrument
> than a camera. A camera needs to have
> different types of film for different
> conditions. It needs special lens that
> don't even produce the sort of high
> resolution images that your brain
> obtains. And here these sad come lately
> evolutionists are telling us that the
> human eye evolved from matter,without
> the aid of any intelligent creator.
>
> I say pure bunk.
Argument from incredulity.
HRG.
Sean Ellis
>sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis) wrote:
>
>> Just for fun...
>>
>> Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
>> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
>> imagined picture?
>
>(Chop)
>
>Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
>advised words got chopped.
Eh? Who's Jay Cole?
In any case, the accusations that you level at evolution
(unobservable, not science, etc.) are (a) false, and (b) present in
the "creation science" case in spades.
>I told Cole
>that I turned atheists arguments around
>and used them and consequently I DID
>NOT tell him that I went around like a
>peevish silly mimick.
Sorry, never had any contact with Jay Cole. Your "arguments" were just
crying out for this substitution to highlight their enhanced
applicability to "creation science". However, since you now bring up
some additional arguments, let me deal with them:
>Your arguments are not satisfactory on
>the other hand in that this ordered world
>relects an order.
Question begging.
> A creation demands a creator.
Question begging.
>Every scientific observation
>demonstrates this fact.
Non sequitur.
>If you want a
>manufactured item such as a car, you go
>to the car manufacturer. But the human
>body in millions if not billions of
>timesmore complex than a car.
Argument by flawed analogy.
>The
>human eye is a more precise instrument
>than a camera. A camera needs to have
>different types of film for different
>conditions. It needs special lens that
>don't even produce the sort of high
>resolution images that your brain
>obtains.
Argument by flawed analogy.
> And here these sad come lately
>evolutionists are telling us that the
>human eye evolved from matter,without
>the aid of any intelligent creator.
The case against the evolution of the eye was discussed and debunked
over 100 years ago.
>I say pure bunk.
Argument from personal incredulity.
>Hathaway5353
Sorry, I can't remember which shapeshifter creationist you are, for
the moment. Are you Karl Crawford or McNameless ?
Stewart Dean
>. A creation demands a creator.
What if it's not a creation? Earth is not a creation after all.
Llani...@my-dejanews.com
A creation demands a
> creator.
No, YOU demand a creator. Nature has no obligation to accede to your
demands.
>Every scientific observation
> demonstrates this fact.
Is a snowflake created by a creator, or by natural processes?
> And here these sad come lately
> evolutionists are telling us that the
> human eye evolved from matter,without
> the aid of any intelligent creator.
>
Sad it may be, but your sorrow doesn't invalidate it.
> I say pure bunk.
>
Yes, you seem to be saying a LOT of pure bunk.
//
/******** Dave ********/
Rock science is NOT rocket science!
Llani...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> imagined picture?
>
Why is it that creationists resort to imagination rather than utilize the
facts that already exist?
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> imagined picture?
>
Don't confuse evolution with creation. Let's see if I am correct...
>
> I speak of the fabled "proto-cell" and other such
> "unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
> how life came to be.
>
So far no problem "speculate" implies uncertainty.
>
> Unfortunately, this "proto-cell" does not fit into
> the category of "observation" and"repetition."
>
Of course it does.
>
> Go back to your grade school science textbooks and
> look up science.
>
Please do.
>
> No observation - no science.
At least we agree that creation "science" isn't.
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Your arguments are not satisfactory on
> the other hand in that this ordered world
> relects an order. A creation demands a
Order does not need a creator.
>
> creator. Every scientific observation
Nope, you demand a creator.
>
> demonstrates this fact. If you want a
Nope, science contradicts your "fact'
> obtains. And here these sad come lately
> evolutionists are telling us that the
> human eye evolved from matter,without
> the aid of any intelligent creator.
>
Yes, for some it is hard to deal with the reality of science. In the middle
ages they would explain what they did not understand with "Deus ex
Machina", God did it. We should know better by now. Some apparantly don't
Michael Painter
>> creator.
altfan...@my-dejanews.com
I can't make this out. I might not be to the point, but I will say that
Life is a universal phenomenon that actualizes itsef under its own rules.
I'll say also, without "proof" of course, that Life can operate independent
of Matter and its Laws. I believe this is demonstrated by the "Mind" as
contrasted with the "Brain". The "Will" and the "Intellect".
Anyway, it is at <alt.fan.publius> that all this has an effective though
still limited - but growing - forum. PUBLIUS
altfan...@my-dejanews.com
True to some extent. The Ancient Egyptians said (Genesis One):
"..and God said, let the waters send forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath Life." Substitute "Science" for God (now) and
we're all still OK. But the Egyptians also said : "No Man shall know the
Form of God."
We think we now have a handle on the "Form of God" and that "Form"
is completely explainable according to the Laws of Physics and Chemistry.
I say we're headed for a fall. PUBLIUS
Louann Miller
> I'll say also, without "proof" of course, that Life can operate independent
> of Matter and its Laws. I believe this is demonstrated by the "Mind" as
> contrasted with the "Brain". The "Will" and the "Intellect".
I'll say also that Capitalizing to make Words look more Important is not
nearly as Illiterate as the Standard Argumentum Ad CAPSLOCK, but it Does
make you look Pompous.
You used to be much funnier.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a70fc5...@news.blue.ne
t>,
tea...@bbtel.HORMEL.com
(Bonz) wrote:
> On 18 Jan 1999 17:44:52 -0500, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com> >> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >[snip]
> >>
> >> Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
> >> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> >> imagined picture?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> >that I turned atheists arguments around
> >and used them and consequently I DID
> >NOT tell him that I went around like a
> >peevish silly mimick.
> >
> >the other hand in that this ordered world
> >relects an order. A creation demands a
>
> Does it stamp its widdle feets until it gets one?
No, but it means your waddling feet
get stepped on until you pick up
some logic.
>
> >Every scientific observation
> >demonstrates this fact. If you want a
> >manufactured item such as a car, you go
> >to the car manufacturer. But the human
> >body in millions if not billions of
> >timesmore complex than a car. The
> >human eye is a more precise instrument
> >than a camera. A camera needs to have
> >different types of film for different
> >conditions. It needs special lens that
> >don't even produce the sort of high
> >resolution images that your brain
> >obtains. And here these sad come lately
> >evolutionists are telling us that the
> >human eye evolved from matter,without
> >the aid of any intelligent creator.
>
> Yep. What's your problem with that? Other than being an idiot, I
> mean.
Which is why you can't answer the
statement. Prove to me that life can
come from a bunch of chemicals, all
by it little selfy.
Can't answer it? I thought so.
Hathaway5353
>
> >
> >I say pure bunk.
>
> OK, noted. The guy who doesn't know the difference between a
> mean, mode, and median thinks it is bunk.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a3c6b2...@news.dircon.co.uk
>,
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > And here these sad come lately
> >evolutionists are telling us that the
> >human eye evolved from matter,without
> >the aid of any intelligent creator.
> >
> >
> >Hathaway5353
>
> The eye has evolved several times through the histroy of nature.
> Squids eyes, for example, evolved differently. In some ways the human
> eye is less well designed, simply because we have the nerves
> connections on the inside of the eye.
>
> Also it interesting to note that in our quest we've found that
> artificial intelligence is next to impossible to design.
>
> Instead we're mimicking the way nature does things and evolving minds,
> and whole artificial creatures. So if it works for us why not in non
> artificial conditions.
>
> Lastly get a bag of sand and a flat surface. From a fixed point poor
> the sand onto the surface. Note how the sand will form a cone nearly
> perfectly round. Did you create that cone, make it round. No cause
> and effect did. You are not the creator of that sand pile, mearly one
> of the causes.
>
> If evolution is bunk then it's bunk that saves lives, designs
> airoplanes, fine tunes computer programs and creatures natural
> behavour when simulated.
>
> If you want a good book to rage against have a go at 'The Blind
> Watchmaker' it goes on in great depths about the folly of design vs
> nature.
>
> Life is very 'bottom up' - but don't take my word for it.
No one's ever observed squid eyes in
successive generations turning into
anything but squid eyes. You made a lot
of points but alas this one fact brings it
all down.
Hathaway5353
> Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <780e64$hqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article
> > <36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
> > cape.com>,
> > sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
> > wrote:
> > > Just for fun...
> > >
> > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
> > > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > > imagined picture?
> > >
> >
> > (Chop)
> >
> > Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> > advised words got chopped. I told Cole
> > that I turned atheists arguments around
> > and used them and consequently I DID
> > NOT tell him that I went around like a
> > peevish silly mimick.
> >
> > Your arguments are not satisfactory on
> > the other hand in that this ordered world
> > relects an order. A creation demands a
> > demonstrates this fact.
>
> Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
> I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
> creator first.
Nope. It's not tautology. All our
experience has shown that complex order
comes about by intelligence that orders
it. See your camera? Your eyes are
much more complex than your camera.
Think about it.
\
Hathaway5353
>
> Can you say "circularity" ?
>
> > If you want a
> > manufactured item such as a car, you go
> > to the car manufacturer.
>
> But planets, mountains, animals are not "manufactured" in the sense that a car
> is manufactured. We observe car factories where workers, according to plans by
> engineers manufacture cars. Since we do not observe similar processes with
> planets etc. the analogy fails.
>
> But the human
> > body in millions if not billions of
> > timesmore complex than a car.
>
> The rings of Saturn are millions times more complex as well if you include the
> motion of every piece of rock.
>
> The
> > human eye is a more precise instrument
> > than a camera. A camera needs to have
> > different types of film for different
> > conditions. It needs special lens that
> > don't even produce the sort of high
> > resolution images that your brain
> > obtains. And here these sad come lately
> > evolutionists are telling us that the
> > human eye evolved from matter,without
> > the aid of any intelligent creator.
> >
> > I say pure bunk.
>
> Argument from incredulity.
>
> HRG.
> > Hathaway5353
> >
> > >
> >
> > > URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2448/atheism.html
> > >
> > >
> >
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a5545...@news.uk.superscap
>
> >sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis) wrote:
> >
> >> Just for fun...
> >>
> >> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> >> imagined picture?
> >
> >(Chop)
> >
> >Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> >advised words got chopped.
> > A creation demands a creator.
>
> Question begging.
Sorry, it is not question begging. Unless
you want to go down to a beach, view
some sand castles and tell me that wind
and water did it.
I will then say, a design demands a
designer and you will say "question
begging" and everyone will laugh.
Hathaway5353
You're not very good at this logic thing.
That's the jist of all your other mistakes
summarized in this one answer.
> Sean
>
> "Every prick is a prick for Jesus" - Paul Merton
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk> >. A creation demands a creator.
Since you're such a strong believer in
coincidence surely you could not grasp
the fact that the earth was created by a
creator.
Hathaway5353
> What if it's not a creation? Earth is not a creation after all.
>
> Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<783ims$8k3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Llani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <780e64$hqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > creator.
>
> demands.
And you haven't produced a mythological
protocell.
Hathaway5353
You can't because chemistry is extremely
complex. And even if you did make one
that proves that intelligence can create
protocells.
> >Every scientific observation
> > demonstrates this fact.
>
> Is a snowflake created by a creator, or by natural processes?
>
> > And here these sad come lately
> > evolutionists are telling us that the
> > human eye evolved from matter,without
> > the aid of any intelligent creator.
> >
>
> Sad it may be, but your sorrow doesn't invalidate it.
>
> > I say pure bunk.
> >
> Yes, you seem to be saying a LOT of pure bunk.
>
> //
> /******** Dave ********/
>
> Rock science is NOT rocket science!
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<Ppep2.11680$9X4.4...@news.inr
each.com>,
Michael Painter
Which means you're still dreaming about
those proto-cells.
Hathaway5353
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36A5FD...@mail.smu.edu>,
lou...@post.cis.smu.edu wrote:
> altfan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I'll say also, without "proof" of course, that Life can operate independent
> > of Matter and its Laws. I believe this is demonstrated by the "Mind" as
> > contrasted with the "Brain". The "Will" and the "Intellect".
>
> I'll say also that Capitalizing to make Words look more Important is not
> nearly as Illiterate as the Standard Argumentum Ad CAPSLOCK, but it Does
> make you look Pompous.
>
> You used to be much funnier.
I guess you weren't told in grade school
that it is completely valid to capitalize
words and many of the Founding Fathers
did so - especially Benjamin Franklin.
The purpose is to simplify and to
emphasize. In some of my dialogue with
people I have been doing using this
technique because some people don't have
a very good attention span and
misunderstand me.
Hathaway5353
>
> --
> Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36A56688...@eskimo.com>,
Pim van Meurs <ent...@eskimo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > the other hand in that this ordered world
> > relects an order. A creation demands a
>
>
> >
> > creator. Every scientific observation
>
> Nope, you demand a creator.
>
> >
>
You mean the same science that brought
forth this imaginary Proto-cell? Or the
Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, the
falsely interpreted Neanderthal
Man(really suffered from arthritis),the
"declared on the spot as hominid" Lucy,
the human embryo with "gill slits", the
comparative anatomy that says some
animals and men are related because they
have a similar bones (the same bones
that allow hand and leg rotation!),.....
well, wow, some science.
Which causes me not to take the rest of
your posting seriously. If you didn't use
a faulty argument I would have continued.
Hathaway5353
>
> > obtains. And here these sad come lately
> > evolutionists are telling us that the
> > human eye evolved from matter,without
> > the aid of any intelligent creator.
> >
>
> Yes, for some it is hard to deal with the reality of science. In the middle
> ages they would explain what they did not understand with "Deus ex
> Machina", God did it. We should know better by now. Some apparantly don't
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<rRPo2.2030$IJ3.18449437@WReNph
oon2>,
jki...@nbbj.com (Jim Kinney) wrote:
>
> "A creation requires a creator"
>
> Does anyone else pick up on the circular arguement
> here?
First, it's an argument, that's for
sure...but your response was premature
as this is a statement of which the
premises that it's based on is not there.
IF I recited the law of gravity I'd be doing
the same thing. If I said a force called
gravity pulled things down I would be
telling the truth even if I did not refer to
the 100's of observations that proved
this fact. Well, I have 100's of
observations of intelligence creating
complex things, but not even a single
observation of aminos producing
anything but...well, aminos eventually
fall apart too.
Hathaway5353
First it is stated that life is a 'creation'.
> I agree that a creation requires a creator. Thus
> there must be a creator because there is life. How do
> we know that life is a creation? Because we just
> proved that there is a creator. Aaarrrggghhh! This
> makes my head hurt. If life is not a creation (in
> theory of course) then there is no need for a creator,
> and thus this could have all happened without the help
> of a supreme being... Except for J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs of
> course.
>
> -Rev. Pope Impious XXIII, ULC, RSVP, EIEIO
>
> *** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a3bb92...@news.dircon.co.uk> >Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
> >imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> >imagined picture?
> >
> >"unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
> >how life came to be.
>
The proto-cell is just like those phoney
paintings of apemen.
Hathaway5353
There is much
> pointing it's way even if we havnt seen it. It does fit in with a
> theory of cause and effect but has yet to be proved. Currently the
> protocell wins in the probablity stakes and a lot of work has to be
> done to work out the details and make the theory more than 'well we
> reacon this happened'.
>
> Any other evidence that points in another direction is always welcome.
>
> Got any alternatives? And dont say a god did it as if it did it did a
> very good job hiding the evidence and then putting down lots of false
> stuff.
>
> Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<783ias$8e9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Llani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <77tu78$dbo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
> > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > imagined picture?
> >
>
> facts that already exist?
Are you disputing the millions of
observations that yo have everyday of
intelligence doing something constructive
- producing complex things?
Now produce some living cells from
chance.
Can't do it. I thought so. It was your
imagination that produced it.
Hathaway5353
>
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
> >
>
> //
> /******** Dave ********/
>
> Rock science is NOT rocket science!
>
Sean Ellis
>Sorry, it is not question begging. Unless
>you want to go down to a beach, view
>some sand castles and tell me that wind
>and water did it.
I wouldn't say this about sandcastles. There is no natural process
which would end up at a sand castle. However, there is something even
more complex than a sand castle on the beach.
Have you seen those little braided streams that runoff water makes as
it goes down from the beach to the sea? They are incredibly complex.
Who put all the little braids there, or was it a natural process?
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <780e64$hqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > <36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
> > > cape.com>,
> > > sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Just for fun...
> > > >
> > > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > > > imagined picture?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> > > that I turned atheists arguments around
> > > and used them and consequently I DID
> > > NOT tell him that I went around like a
> > > peevish silly mimick.
> > >
> > > the other hand in that this ordered world
> > > relects an order. A creation demands a
> > > demonstrates this fact.
> >
> > Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
> > I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
> > creator first.
>
> Nope. It's not tautology.
"A creation demands a creator" is a direct consequence from the definition of
"creation", hence a tautology. See above.
> All our
> experience has shown that complex order
*Some* complex order like watches - where we have observed watchmakers -
> comes about by intelligence that orders
> it.
Please speak for yourself. The experience of people who actually investigated
the problem has shown that there are non-deterministic processes that can
create complexity without intelligent intervention.
See your camera? Your eyes are
> much more complex than your camera.
... and the light-sensitive spots of Amphioxus are much simpler than a camera.
Cameras don't reproduce.
Think about it.
HRG.
> Think about it.
> \
> Hathaway5353
<snip>
altfan...@my-dejanews.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36a5545...@news.uk.superscap
> >
> > >sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just for fun...
> > >>
> > >> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > >> imagined picture?
> > >
> > >(Chop)
> > >
> > >Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> > >advised words got chopped.
>
Why not go all-out, Mr. Logician, and say "A Creator demands a Creator."
PUBLIUS
> >
> > Question begging.
>
> Sorry, it is not question begging. Unless
> you want to go down to a beach, view
> some sand castles and tell me that wind
> and water did it.
>
> I will then say, a design demands a
> designer and you will say "question
> begging" and everyone will laugh.
>
> Hathaway5353
>
> You're not very good at this logic thing.
> That's the jist of all your other mistakes
> summarized in this one answer.
>
> > Sean
> >
> > "Every prick is a prick for Jesus" - Paul Merton
> >
> > URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2448/atheism.html
> >
> >
>
Thomas Scharle
|> In article <786g9r$psv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
|> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
|> > > > A creation demands a creator.
|>
|> Why not go all-out, Mr. Logician, and say "A Creator demands a Creator."
But does a creator demand a creation?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
winge...@my-dejanews.com
> <36a5545...@news.uk.superscap
> e.com>,
> sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis) wrote:
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > >sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just for fun...
> > >>
> > >> Why is it that the creation scientists resort to
> > >> imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > >> imagined picture?
> > >
> > >(Chop)
> > >
> > >Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> > >advised words got chopped.
>
> >
>
> Sorry, it is not question begging. Unless
> you want to go down to a beach, view
> some sand castles and tell me that wind
> and water did it.
Then again, with sandcastles, there is something to contrast the castle to,
nature. Nature is rarely one to create exact lines of architecture by chance.
However, things that do happen by chance are clouds. If you look at a cloud
that looks something like a dragon and say design demands a designer, most
people would ask you to proove that it was designed.
dic...@drizzle.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <783ias$8e9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Llani...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <77tu78$dbo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > > imagined picture?
> > >
> >
> > facts that already exist?
>
> Are you disputing the millions of
> observations that yo have everyday of
> intelligence doing something constructive
> - producing complex things?
Certainly not, that is why she asked the question.
>
> Now produce some living cells from
> chance.
>
> Can't do it. I thought so. It was your
> imagination that produced it.
Depending upon what you mean, we see mutation happen all the time.
Oh, and what about cancer? Or does your god cause that too?
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@drizzle.com
dic...@drizzle.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article
> <36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
>
> Since you're such a strong believer in
> coincidence surely you could not grasp
> the fact that the earth was created by a
> creator.
We've been through all this before nameless. Just post some evidence, or shut
up and go away.
>
> Hathaway5353
>
> > What if it's not a creation? Earth is not a creation after all.
> >
> > Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> > alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
> >
> >
>
altfan...@my-dejanews.com
dic...@drizzle.com wrote:
> In article <786gd7$q09$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article
> > <36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
> > >,
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
> > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >. A creation demands a creator.
> >
> > Since you're such a strong believer in
> > coincidence surely you could not grasp
> > the fact that the earth was created by a
> > creator.
>
> We've been through all this before nameless. Just post some evidence, or shut
> up and go away.
>
> >
> > Hathaway5353
> >
> > > What if it's not a creation? Earth is not a creation after all.
I think it says somewhere: "And God said, let there be a BANG!.
And lo!- There was a BIG BANG!"
Stewart Dean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Path: 194.112.55.217
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
X-Trace: 21 Jan 1999 23:41:43 GMT, 194.112.55.217
Lines: 96
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article
><36a3c6b2...@news.dircon.co.uk
>>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> > And here these sad come lately
>> >evolutionists are telling us that the
>> >human eye evolved from matter,without
>> >the aid of any intelligent creator.
>> >
How do you reason that? Because the squid eye was not observed
evolving it didnt? I think you'll find we where too buisy evolving
ourself at the time. I didnt say we did see it evolve (that's
impossible as you know) or that it alone proves evolution (the fact
it's different from the human eye begs the question 'why?'). The
answer you could have claimed is God got bored of making eyes one way
and decided to flip the receptors around. New question 'why did he
get bored?'. Get the idea?
You can watch squid generations all your life and notice next to no
change - but I'm sure look at squid in different locations and you'll
notice how different they are, much like Darwin's finches.
Also you can go through the creatures of the world and and I'm sure
you'll see how the eye has evolved, theres bound to be some species
trying to catch up with the rest. Have a hunt for a creature with
rudimentary eyes or just light sensitive patches - bound to be one.
(don't know - havnt looked).
Returning from evidence to your bad reasoning..
So because man didnt see squid evolve, sand doesnt form pyramids,
airoplanes arnt designed using evolution, and evolution itself is just
some myth made up and kept alive by the worlds greatest conspiracy?
Don't be lazy - think a bit. I come here because I want to debate,
not have to teach you the basics of evolution. If I'm wrong I want to
be shown how I'm wrong. And I mean shown.
Stewart Dean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Path: 194.112.55.217
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
Lines: 25
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article
><36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
>>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >. A creation demands a creator.
>
>Since you're such a strong believer in
>coincidence surely you could not grasp
>the fact that the earth was created by a
>creator.
No evidence - no fact.
Don't blame me - I didnt make up the rules of causality. If God did he
put himself out of a job at the time of the big bang.
Stewart Dean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Path: 194.112.55.217
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
Lines: 36
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
altfan...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
>> > >,
>> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> > > What if it's not a creation? Earth is not a creation after all.
>
> I think it says somewhere: "And God said, let there be a BANG!.
> And lo!- There was a BIG BANG!"
'Damn', thought God, 'If only I didnt include cause and effect I might
still be in a job'.
God then went on to create other universes where things could happen
without any cause. It just kind of sat there fizzing in a rather
disturbing and chaotic way before wiping it's self out by the creation
of too much anit matter.
'Damn' thought God, 'That doesnt work either.'
God had a quick think.
'Got it - I'll create a universe with form and structure but some nice
gaps in which I can improvise'.
And lo - God created Jazz. Nice.
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <786g1b$pii$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article
> > <781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <780e64$hqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <36a489ea...@news.uk.supers
> > > > cape.com>,
> > > > sel...@geocities.com (Sean Ellis)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Just for fun...
> > > > >
> > > > > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > imagination when the facts don't fill in the
> > > > > imagined picture?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but your mimicking Jay Cole
> > > > that I turned atheists arguments around
> > > > and used them and consequently I DID
> > > > NOT tell him that I went around like a
> > > > peevish silly mimick.
> > > >
> > > > Your arguments are not satisfactory on
> > > > the other hand in that this ordered world
> > > > relects an order. A creation demands a
> > > > creator. Every scientific observation
> > > > demonstrates this fact.
> > >
> > > Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
> > > I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
> > > creator first.
> >
> > Nope. It's not tautology.
>
> "A creation demands a creator" is a direct consequence from the definition of
> "creation", hence a tautology. See above.
Nope. Just because gravity wasn't defined
in the law doesn't mean it's a tautology.
>
> > All our
> > experience has shown that complex order
>
> *Some* complex order like watches - where we have observed watchmakers -
Yup. And there is anything that is
complex that isn't manmade as far as
observations allow. The best you
evolutionists can come up with is a
crystal or snowflakes. But crystals
arrange by predetermined shape up the
basic atomic structure, and flakes follow
a pattern while falling from the sky, and
again this has something to do with the
basic atomic structure of water. But then
when we're talking about the complex
human eye, there is nothing in nature
that arranges that. Too complex. And,
there is no repeated observation of
aminos turning into anything.
Nobody on these newgroups has answered
that except for WD-40 who said "just
because something hasn't been seen
before doesn't mean something can't
happen like that."
And that's where the mythological
protocell came into existence. If you can't
change the rule that creation demands a
creator, then you make up a mythology
that contradicts that rule.
Hathaway5353
>
> > comes about by intelligence that orders
> > it.
>
> Please speak for yourself. The experience of people who actually investigated
> the problem has shown that there are non-deterministic processes that can
> create complexity without intelligent intervention.
>
> See your camera? Your eyes are
> > much more complex than your camera.
>
> ... and the light-sensitive spots of Amphioxus are much simpler than a camera.
>
> Cameras don't reproduce.
> Think about it.
>
> HRG.
> > Think about it.
> > \
> > Hathaway5353
>
> <snip>
>
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
believe that somewhere underneath the
earth are some pillars to be found.
Problem is, as I researched this I found
out something interesting. Sometimes the
pillars in the Bible may be made of
marble, or stone, or something else. That
something else may also be a "cloud," as in
a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
or some other phenomena that is anything
but stone.
Hathaway5353
Thomas P.
>It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
>the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
>that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
>believe that somewhere underneath the
>earth are some pillars to be found.
>Problem is, as I researched this I found
>out something interesting. Sometimes the
>pillars in the Bible may be made of
>marble, or stone, or something else. That
>something else may also be a "cloud," as in
>a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
>or some other phenomena that is anything
>but stone.
>
>Hathaway5353
>
Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
Thomas P.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Oldguyteck
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<789c2u$91k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
>the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
>that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
>believe that somewhere underneath the
>earth are some pillars to be found.
>Problem is, as I researched this I found
>out something interesting. Sometimes the
>pillars in the Bible may be made of
>marble, or stone, or something else. That
>something else may also be a "cloud," as in
>a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
>or some other phenomena that is anything
>but stone.
>
>Hathaway5353
Well I have oft heard the expression, That person (so and so) is the pillar
of the town or society ect, Now I wouldnt jump immediatly to the conclusion
that this person is actually physically holding up the town per say or the
community as it being on some type of platform or ledge or table etc.
Ed..............................(Oldguyteck) †
Stewart Dean
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
X-Trace: 22 Jan 1999 14:10:48 GMT, 194.112.54.241
Lines: 40
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article
><786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <786g1b$pii$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
>> > > I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
>> > > creator first.
>> >
>> > Nope. It's not tautology.
>>
>> "A creation demands a creator" is a direct consequence from the definition of
>> "creation", hence a tautology. See above.
>
>Nope. Just because gravity wasn't defined
>in the law doesn't mean it's a tautology.
>
Gravity is evident though, it was there and we had to explain it. We
don't suppose gravity as it's one of the 'beyond reasonable doubt'
thing in our life. How it works is a different matter.
A creator or evidence of creation is not evident so therefore both
sides of you argument argue the same point - in essence 'There is a
creator so there is a creator'. It's an argument that doesnt go
anyhere.
John Popelish
>
> It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> believe that somewhere underneath the
> earth are some pillars to be found.
> Problem is, as I researched this I found
> out something interesting. Sometimes the
> pillars in the Bible may be made of
> marble, or stone, or something else. That
> something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> or some other phenomena that is anything
> but stone.
Why do you find this subject interesting? Honestly.
John Popelish
O'Reilly
dejanews.com says...
> It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> believe that somewhere underneath the
> earth are some pillars to be found.
> Problem is, as I researched this I found
> out something interesting. Sometimes the
> pillars in the Bible may be made of
> marble, or stone, or something else. That
> something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> or some other phenomena that is anything
> but stone.
OK, so they are made of different materials -- but I still have yet to
see or hear about pillars of anything holding up the earth. Sorry.
I'm sure you had the intention of going somewhere with this, but I think
you lost your map along the way. You took a wrong turn back at I-Think-
I-Have-A-Point.
> Hathaway5353
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
%====================^====================%
A. O'Reilly Atheist #1153
%====================^====================%
"You look for prophets, and they
look for fools..." - DnC
Stewart Dean
>In article
><36a3bb92...@news.dircon.co.uk
>>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it that the evolutionists resort to
>> >imagination when the facts don't fill in the
>> >imagined picture?
>> >
>> >I speak of the fabled "proto-cell" and other such
>> >"unobserved" contrivances used to speculate on
>> >how life came to be.
>>
>> The 'proto-cell' is currently the best contendor.
>
>The proto-cell is just like those phoney
>paintings of apemen.
>
>Hathaway5353
You have a proto-cell?
Doubt man will every recreate life the way it originally happened, at
least not for a long while - but artificial life is coming along
nicely, it uses many of the same principles. I see human level
intelligence being 'created' within my life time.
Personally I havnt a spare few million years to watch chemical life
evolve. But, given the evidence, the proto-cell is currently the best
contendor. Why? You got an alternative with supporting work? Any
scientific papers? The scientific method works by looking at the
options and picking the most probable. If, at a later date the path
leads to imporbable the next candidate is picked, etc.
Humans dont invent science, they just uncover it.
No idea what you're on about regarding paintings of apemen. Take it
someone was trying to make a quick buck - like those guys who did the
Alien autopsy and the makers of the Turin Shrowd.
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a8478d...@news.inet.tele.dk>
,
tonyho...@post6.tele.dk (Thomas
> >the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> >that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> >believe that somewhere underneath the
> >earth are some pillars to be found.
> >Problem is, as I researched this I found
> >out something interesting. Sometimes the
> >pillars in the Bible may be made of
> >marble, or stone, or something else. That
> >something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> >a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> >or some other phenomena that is anything
> >but stone.
> >
> >
>
> Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
It is my personal belief that the pillars
may be a reference to structures under
the earth that allowed for the chasms that
contain vast reservoirs of water.
Hathaway5353
>
> Thomas P.
>
> Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<MPG.111262dc79c2c1c1989715@new
s1.lig.bellsouth.net>,
o...@bs.net (O'Reilly) wrote:
> In article <789c2u$91k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, hathaway5353@my-
> dejanews.com says...
> > the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> > that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> > believe that somewhere underneath the
> > earth are some pillars to be found.
> > Problem is, as I researched this I found
> > out something interesting. Sometimes the
> > pillars in the Bible may be made of
> > marble, or stone, or something else. That
> > something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> > a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> > or some other phenomena that is anything
> > but stone.
>
> see or hear about pillars of anything holding up the earth. Sorry.
>
> I'm sure you had the intention of going somewhere with this, but I think
> you lost your map along the way. You took a wrong turn back at I-Think-
> I-Have-A-Point.
Not conclusive, however. Additionally, I
personally believe that the pillars refer
to the structures within the earth that
made for the caverns that held vast
reservoirs of water. In geology there are
numerous examples of these pillars
found.
Hathaway5353
>
> > Hathaway5353
> >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> --
> %====================^====================%
> A. O'Reilly Atheist #1153
> %====================^====================%
> "You look for prophets, and they
> look for fools..." - DnC
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
wrote:
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> > the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> > that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> > believe that somewhere underneath the
> > earth are some pillars to be found.
> > Problem is, as I researched this I found
> > out something interesting. Sometimes the
> > pillars in the Bible may be made of
> > marble, or stone, or something else. That
> > something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> > a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> > or some other phenomena that is anything
> > but stone.
>
It's interesting but one of you brought it
up.
Hathaway5353
>
> John Popelish
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<O8_p2.937$If7.1...@newshog.ne
wsread.com>,
"Oldguyteck"
<Edward....@the-spa.com> wrote:
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <789c2u$91k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> >that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> >believe that somewhere underneath the
> >earth are some pillars to be found.
> >Problem is, as I researched this I found
> >out something interesting. Sometimes the
> >pillars in the Bible may be made of
> >marble, or stone, or something else. That
> >something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> >a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> >or some other phenomena that is anything
> >but stone.
> >
>
> Well I have oft heard the expression, That person (so and so) is the pillar
> of the town or society ect, Now I wouldnt jump immediatly to the conclusion
> that this person is actually physically holding up the town per say or the
> community as it being on some type of platform or ledge or table etc.
You could. But the rule here is, if the
context doesn't force it and it doesn't, you
leave the blank empty and say you don't
know what sort of pillar it refers to.
Hathaway5353
>
> Ed..............................(Oldguyteck) †
Nicolas P. Demers
>
> It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> believe that somewhere underneath the
> earth are some pillars to be found.
> Problem is, as I researched this I found
> out something interesting. Sometimes the
> pillars in the Bible may be made of
> marble, or stone, or something else. That
> something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> or some other phenomena that is anything
> but stone.
So... it's pillars of smoke and fire that really hold up the earth?
And in fact they're not "underneath" the earth, but above it, so they
could lead the Israelites to Sinai? And what do the pillars described
in other parts of the bible have to do with the pillars that allegedly
hold up the earth?
And what's this fascination with pillars, anyways?
--
Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~npd/personal/index.html
"Sometimes you have to die a little
to find a place where you can really live."
Darryl L. Pierce, Piper 1st Class
an teachtaireacht seo:
;> Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
;
;It is my personal belief that the pillars
;may be a reference to structures under
;the earth that allowed for the chasms that
;contain vast reservoirs of water.
Lemme guess; these waters are the ones used for the flood, right? How,
exactly, do these waters maintain their liquid form under such
pressure from the earth's mantle?
Mise le meas,
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce Alt.Atheism Member #1142, Death 'Piper of the BAAWA |
| Visit me @ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
| ...I never drew first, but I drew first blood... |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Unsolicited email to this address is acceptance of a $500 per day |
| storage expense to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the email. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
raven1
>It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
>the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
>that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
>believe that somewhere underneath the
>earth are some pillars to be found.
>Problem is, as I researched this I found
>out something interesting. Sometimes the
>pillars in the Bible may be made of
>marble, or stone, or something else. That
>something else may also be a "cloud," as in
>a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
>or some other phenomena that is anything
>but stone.
That's as may be, but the earth is still an unsupported sphere. Your
point is?
--
All Hail Fondle the Elephant! (Official mascot of THE KIND)
Our debut CD-Single, "Rubber Girl" is now available! (Also featuring "Undertow" and "The Road"). Look for our long-awaited full-length CD "You're Soaking In It" in early 1999! E-mail us for details and upcoming shows!
O'Reilly
says...
> Ar Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:43:11 GMT, chuir hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
> an teachtaireacht seo:
>
> ;> Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
> ;
> ;It is my personal belief that the pillars
> ;may be a reference to structures under
> ;the earth that allowed for the chasms that
> ;contain vast reservoirs of water.
>
> Lemme guess; these waters are the ones used for the flood, right? How,
> exactly, do these waters maintain their liquid form under such
> pressure from the earth's mantle?
Isn't it obvious? It's a miracle! How else could we know the glory of
the good lord!
Sheesh...
Bill Felton
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> > the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> > that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> > believe that somewhere underneath the
> > earth are some pillars to be found.
> > Problem is, as I researched this I found
> > out something interesting. Sometimes the
> > pillars in the Bible may be made of
> > marble, or stone, or something else. That
> > something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> > a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> > or some other phenomena that is anything
> > but stone.
>
> And in fact they're not "underneath" the earth, but above it, so they
> could lead the Israelites to Sinai? And what do the pillars described
> in other parts of the bible have to do with the pillars that allegedly
> hold up the earth?
>
> And what's this fascination with pillars, anyways?
>
>
so many of those here lately, and clearly they're just
jerking off, yet are unequipped to do so other than by
spewing all over the net.
Thus, sufficient evidence that they were designed dickless.
:-> for the humor impaired.
Bill
President, BAAWA
Head, Individual Liberties Division, EAC
some atheist number or other
EAC ID# 666^666
"The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head", Terry Pratchett
convert xlax to ibm for correct mail address
Jesus Saves, but Cthulhu Engulfs and Devours. Why settle for the lesser
evil?
John Popelish
> death...@baawa.org (Darryl L.
(snip)
> > Lemme guess; these waters are the ones used for the flood, right? How,
> > exactly, do these waters maintain their liquid form under such
> > pressure from the earth's mantle?
>
>
> 2. When some of the pillars were
> damaged the earth caved in and water
> spouted out from the pressure.
>
> 3. It's just my theory.
When miracles are allowed, anything is possible, and it doesn't have to
make sense. Right? So theories can never be tested.
John Popelish
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36a8de13...@news3.ibm.net>,
death...@baawa.org (Darryl L.
Pierce, Piper 1st Class) wrote:
> Ar Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:43:11 GMT, chuir hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
> an teachtaireacht seo:
>
> ;> Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
> ;
> ;It is my personal belief that the pillars
> ;may be a reference to structures under
> ;the earth that allowed for the chasms that
> ;contain vast reservoirs of water.
>
> exactly, do these waters maintain their liquid form under such
> pressure from the earth's mantle?
1. The pillars account for this.
2. When some of the pillars were
damaged the earth caved in and water
spouted out from the pressure.
3. It's just my theory.
Hathaway5353
>
> Mise le meas,
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Darryl L. Pierce Alt.Atheism Member #1142, Death 'Piper of the BAAWA |
> | Visit me @ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
> | ...I never drew first, but I drew first blood... |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Unsolicited email to this address is acceptance of a $500 per day |
> | storage expense to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the email. |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36abe4c2...@news.erols.com>,
psychedelephant@ erols.com wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:15:31 GMT, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
> >the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
> >that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
> >believe that somewhere underneath the
> >earth are some pillars to be found.
> >Problem is, as I researched this I found
> >out something interesting. Sometimes the
> >pillars in the Bible may be made of
> >marble, or stone, or something else. That
> >something else may also be a "cloud," as in
> >a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
> >or some other phenomena that is anything
> >but stone.
>
> point is?
>
Well, being that a pillar need not be
stone, it could be a force much like it
could be made of fire or cloud.
Hathaway5353
> --
>
> All Hail Fondle the Elephant! (Official mascot of THE KIND)
>
> Our debut CD-Single, "Rubber Girl" is now available! (Also featuring "Undertow" and "The Road"). Look for our long-awaited full-length CD "You're Soaking In It" in early 1999! E-mail us for details and upcoming shows!
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Darryl L. Pierce, Piper 1st Class
teachtaireacht seo:
;> Lemme guess; these waters are the ones used for the flood, right? How,
;> exactly, do these waters maintain their liquid form under such
;> pressure from the earth's mantle?
;
;Isn't it obvious? It's a miracle! How else could we know the glory of
;the good lord!
;
;Sheesh...
Ah! Gotcha! I shoulda seen that one coming. I thought I was going for
a checkmate and got blindside by sheer xtian stupidity... There should
be a name for that move. Something like, "The King's Pawn's Putridity
Gambit" or something...
Darryl L. Pierce, Piper 1st Class
an teachtaireacht seo:
;1. The pillars account for this.
Account for what? You said previously they were made of clouds.
;2. When some of the pillars were
;damaged the earth caved in and water
;spouted out from the pressure.
When/where does the bible say this happened during the flood? I read
nothing about earthquakes or collapse of any supporting strata. Also,
where would this collapsing be, exactly?
;3. It's just my theory.
Support it please.
Darryl L. Pierce, Piper 1st Class
an teachtaireacht seo:
;> That's as may be, but the earth is still an unsupported sphere. Your
;> point is?
;>
;
;Well, being that a pillar need not be
;stone, it could be a force much like it
;could be made of fire or cloud.
Incorrect. In a previous post, you said:
"2. When some of the pillars were damaged the earth caved in and water
spouted out from the pressure."
What were these pillars made of, if not stone? If they're something
other than natural rock strata, then they should be locatable and
identifiable. Where should we look for them? I'm quite sure sonar
imaging alone could identify them...
raven1
>In article
><36abe4c2...@news.erols.com>,
> psychedelephant@ erols.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:15:31 GMT, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
>> >the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
>> >that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
>> >believe that somewhere underneath the
>> >earth are some pillars to be found.
>> >Problem is, as I researched this I found
>> >out something interesting. Sometimes the
>> >pillars in the Bible may be made of
>> >marble, or stone, or something else. That
>> >something else may also be a "cloud," as in
>> >a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
>> >or some other phenomena that is anything
>> >but stone.
>>
>> That's as may be, but the earth is still an unsupported sphere. Your
>> point is?
>>
>
>Well, being that a pillar need not be
>stone, it could be a force much like it
>could be made of fire or cloud.
>
Once again, the Earth is an unsupported sphere. It doesn't have *any*
pillars supporting it of stone, fire, cloud or anything else.
What exactly was your point?
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
freinds, take a gander at their
hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
attempts to deny creationists their right
to "free" but unfree speech and their
property rights as supposedly granted
by the Constitution of the United States.
...................
Plans by a Florence, Kentucky,
creationist group to build a $4 million
museum,nature park, and office complex
are on hold after a county fiscal court
voted 4 to 0 December 10 to deny a
rezoning request.
Answers in Genesis (AIG) had received a
9-to-4 approval from a county zoning
commission in October on the proposed
97-acre Genesis Park. But a petition
drive
spearheaded by university professors and
Free Inquiry, a secular humanist
group,helped sway county officials, even
though they received 700 letters and
faxes.
AIG Executive Director Ken Ham says
opponents falsely accused his
organization of being a right-wing cult.
"It really had nothing to do with land
use," Ham says of the zoning defeat. "It
was a philosophical battle."
..................................
Hathaway5353
Dan Fake
It's Anti-science. It's a desperate attempt to
convince itself that the propaganda foisted
on them in their childhood was not a lie, that
their mentoring influence (most likely, their
parents) and social groups (most likely,
churches) are A-OK - sane - on the level,
that eternal life is available for them and their
kind (irregardless of evidence to the contrary)
just by wanting it to be true.
Maybe if they re-file as NUTS they'll have a
shot. As AIG, they haven't got a prayer.
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Rune Boersjoe
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.139.117.31
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.139.117.31
X-Trace: 23 Jan 1999 09:45:43 +0100, 195.139.117.31
Lines: 20
>If you want to know the real motives of
>the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
>their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
>freinds, take a gander at their
>hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
>attempts to deny creationists their right
>to "free" but unfree speech and their
>property rights as supposedly granted
>by the Constitution of the United States.
Freedom of, or should I say from, religion is a myth. While I will
agree that everyone should have their unedited say in matters, I don't
think these are the folks we want to teach our kids 15th century
scientific fact.
--
"I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather...
Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
raven1
>In article
><36a8478d...@news.inet.tele.dk>
>,
> tonyho...@post6.tele.dk (Thomas
>P.) wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:15:31 GMT, hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >It's quite often that I see an atheist refer to
>> >the Bible where it speaks of the pillars
>> >that hold up the earth. Thus, we're led to
>> >believe that somewhere underneath the
>> >earth are some pillars to be found.
>> >Problem is, as I researched this I found
>> >out something interesting. Sometimes the
>> >pillars in the Bible may be made of
>> >marble, or stone, or something else. That
>> >something else may also be a "cloud," as in
>> >a pillar of cloud, or maybe a pillar of fire,
>> >or some other phenomena that is anything
>> >but stone.
>> >
>> >Hathaway5353
>> >
>>
>> Fascinating stuff! By the way where is "underneath the earth"?
>
>It is my personal belief that the pillars
>may be a reference to structures under
>the earth that allowed for the chasms that
>contain vast reservoirs of water.
>
And what evidence do you have to support it?
Evan Thompson
wrote:
> Your arguments are not satisfactory on
> the other hand in that this ordered world
> relects an order. A creation demands a
> creator.
Therefore, if life is not a creation, it requires no creator.
Astonishingly simple, once you think about it.
Every scientific observation
> demonstrates this fact.
All of them? Could you explain to me how the scientific observation that
certain materials are superconducting at very low temperatures
demonstrates the fact that a creation demands a creator? I just don't see
the connection. But why bother with science? A dictionary and some common
sense will tell you that a creation demands a creator. This is news to no
one.
> If you want a
> manufactured item such as a car, you go
> to the car manufacturer.
Actually I go to the dealership...
> But the human
> body in millions if not billions of
> timesmore complex than a car.
One of the things which suggests it was not designed.
The
> human eye is a more precise instrument
> than a camera. A camera needs to have
> different types of film for different
> conditions. It needs special lens that
> don't even produce the sort of high
> resolution images that your brain
> obtains.
Yeah. Nature is wonderous. I can't understand it. God did it. Drool.
Cameras and cars could not have evolved, nor could the mechanical watch
spoken of way back when this argument of yours was actually new. The human
body is different in all the important ways that an evolved, non-designed
entity should be different from a designed artifact. Ignorance is curable.
Go read some biology.
And here these sad come lately
> evolutionists are telling us that the
> human eye evolved from matter,without
> the aid of any intelligent creator.
Where have you been for the past 200 years?
Matt Miller
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>If you want to know the real motives of
>the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
>their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
>freinds, take a gander at their
>hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
>attempts to deny creationists their right
>to "free" but unfree speech and their
>property rights as supposedly granted
>by the Constitution of the United States.
>...................
>
>
>Plans by a Florence, Kentucky,
>creationist group to build a $4 million
>museum,nature park, and office complex
>are on hold after a county fiscal court
>voted 4 to 0 December 10 to deny a
>rezoning request.
>
>
>Answers in Genesis (AIG) had received a
>9-to-4 approval from a county zoning
>
>commission in October on the proposed
>97-acre Genesis Park. But a petition
>drive
>
>spearheaded by university professors and
>Free Inquiry, a secular humanist
>group,helped sway county officials, even
>though they received 700 letters and
>faxes.
>
> AIG Executive Director Ken Ham says
>opponents falsely accused his
>organization of being a right-wing cult.
>"It really had nothing to do with land
>use," Ham says of the zoning defeat. "It
>was a philosophical battle."
I'm guessing that the city couldn't muster up the sewage facilities
needed to handle all the bullshit.
--
Matt Miller | http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr | a.a# 357
Admirable Vanir of Sonoma in UO
EAC Spokesmodel
"Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"
-They Might Be Giants
winge...@my-dejanews.com
So, you've furnished us with one side of the story. Care to present quotes
from the other side? You know, come out with a balanced story so that
everybody can make up their own mind?
Boikat
A friend of mine lives up in that area of
Kentucky, the "museum, nature park, and office
complex" also included either a several hundred
foot tall Cross or Jesus statue (similar the the
"Christ of the Andes"), that was going to be
illuminated by spotlights at night, IIRC. Though
it would surely have been a sight to see, the
locals that objected because the "Theme Park",
which is what they were calling it a few years
ago, would have disrupted the local rural setting
that the park was planned for.
Boikat
cats...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Hathaway5353
A reference to what you are quoting would have been helpful, so we could all
check out the story and the circumstances, which, no offense, might have been
more complex than you are portraying it.
But, assuming your characterization is correct, I agree with you that it is
wrong to use zoning laws to restrict free speech. Of course, the Christian
Coalition and other social conservatives have been using this technique for
years against "porno shops", topless bars and the like. Even here in the
modern Sodom and Gomorrah, New York City. As always, a lot depends on whose
ox is being gored!
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes." - Robert Heinlein
Dave Oldridge
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>If you want to know the real motives of
>the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
>their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
>freinds, take a gander at their
>hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
>attempts to deny creationists their right
>to "free" but unfree speech and their
>property rights as supposedly granted
>by the Constitution of the United States.
>...................
>
>
>Plans by a Florence, Kentucky,
>creationist group to build a $4 million
>museum,nature park, and office complex
>are on hold after a county fiscal court
>voted 4 to 0 December 10 to deny a
>rezoning request.
Gee, they managed to hornswoggle the rubes out of $4 million, eh? I
should be in a different racket. Trouble is, I have scruples.
Dave Oldridge
Sysop, Coastal Watch BBS
telnet://bbs.coastalw.com
ICQ 1800667
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
,
> > If you want to know the real motives of
> > the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
> > their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
> > freinds, take a gander at their
> > hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
> > attempts to deny creationists their right
> > to "free" but unfree speech and their
> > property rights as supposedly granted
> > by the Constitution of the United States.
> > ...................
> >
> > Plans by a Florence, Kentucky,
> > creationist group to build a $4 million
> > museum,nature park, and office complex
> > are on hold after a county fiscal court
> > voted 4 to 0 December 10 to deny a
> > rezoning request.
> >
Well, a Free Inquiry building is one thing, and a
porno shop is another. I would probably be
against a porno shop in my neighborhood but allow
a Free Inquiry building. There's a difference you
know. I mean, say that you have kids, OK. Do you
want a porno store acrossed the street with all the
riff raff that it brings? Don't think so.
Hathaway5353
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
78cr43$50n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> from the other side? You know, come out with a balanced story so that
> everybody can make up their own mind?
Yeah. I wonder what these Free Inquiry folks are
going to say about it.
"Well, gee, it's just a coincidence. We were just
trying to save the environment."
Hathaway5353
>
> >
> > ..................................
> >
> > Hathaway5353
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
36a83aa3...@news.jancomulti.com>,
lo...@my.sig (Rune Boersjoe) wrote:
> @nnrp1.dejanews.com> <789c2u$91k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
> Path: 195.139.117.31
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.139.117.31
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.139.117.31
> X-Trace: 23 Jan 1999 09:45:43 +0100, 195.139.117.31
> Lines: 20
>
> >the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
> >their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
> >freinds, take a gander at their
> >hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
> >attempts to deny creationists their right
> >to "free" but unfree speech and their
> >property rights as supposedly granted
> >by the Constitution of the United States.
>
> agree that everyone should have their unedited say in matters, I don't
> think these are the folks we want to teach our kids 15th century
> scientific fact.
You mean like teaching kids about Pilt Down man
as fact? Nebraska Man (pig's tooth) as fact? As
the wrongheaded interpretation of Neanderthal
Man as fact? As stating that there are 150
vestigial forms in thehuman body as fact? As
showing phoney apeman pictures and sculptures
as fact? As telling kids that there are gill slits on
human embryos as fact?
A lot of scientific deception there, don't you
think? The gill slits still appeared on some
1980s textbooks, and a phoney embryo chart
appeared in a university textbook that my
professor of biology had. And I had to embarrass
him, didn't I? Poor me.
Hathaway5353
> --
>
> "I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather...
> Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."
> Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
78bsl8$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Creation Science is not science. It's religion.
> It's Anti-science. It's a desperate attempt to
> convince itself that the propaganda foisted
> on them in their childhood was not a lie, that
> their mentoring influence (most likely, their
> parents) and social groups (most likely,
> churches) are A-OK - sane - on the level,
> that eternal life is available for them and their
> kind (irregardless of evidence to the contrary)
> just by wanting it to be true.
>
> Maybe if they re-file as NUTS they'll have a
> shot. As AIG, they haven't got a prayer.
And you're the one who thinks we're dumb enough
not to decide for ourselves to know what is science
or not. If we're so dumb, why is that the popular
media dominated by the evolutionists and
humanists philosophy won't come out with
exposes on the evolutionist hoaxes and scams: like
the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, doctored
embryos (gill slits on human fetuses) faked ape
man paintings in the Smithsonian, phoney
interpretation of Neanderthal Man, the once
estimated 150 vestigial bodies in the human, and
on and on it goes?
They can't because they lied and they want
believers in evolution and not disbelievers.
Hathaway5353
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >If you want to know the real motives of
> >the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
> >their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
> >freinds, take a gander at their
> >hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
> >attempts to deny creationists their right
> >to "free" but unfree speech and their
> >property rights as supposedly granted
> >by the Constitution of the United States.
> >...................
> >
> >
> >Plans by a Florence, Kentucky,
> >creationist group to build a $4 million
> >museum,nature park, and office complex
> >are on hold after a county fiscal court
> >voted 4 to 0 December 10 to deny a
> >rezoning request.
> >
> >
> >Answers in Genesis (AIG) had received a
> >9-to-4 approval from a county zoning
> >
> >commission in October on the proposed
> >97-acre Genesis Park. But a petition
> >drive
> >
> >spearheaded by university professors and
> >Free Inquiry, a secular humanist
> >group,helped sway county officials, even
> >though they received 700 letters and
> >faxes.
> >
> > AIG Executive Director Ken Ham says
> >opponents falsely accused his
> >organization of being a right-wing cult.
> >"It really had nothing to do with land
> >use," Ham says of the zoning defeat. "It
> >was a philosophical battle."
> >
> >..................................
> >
> >Hathaway5353
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
36a88444...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
> rp1.dejanews.com> <786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7896b7$4io$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
> X-Trace: 22 Jan 1999 14:10:48 GMT, 194.112.54.241
> Lines: 40
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> In article <786g1b$pii$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
> >> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> > In article
>
> >> > <781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> > > Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
> >> > > I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
> >> > > creator first.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. It's not tautology.
> >>
> >> "A creation demands a creator" is a direct consequence from the definition of
> >> "creation", hence a tautology. See above.
> >
> >Nope. Just because gravity wasn't defined
> >in the law doesn't mean it's a tautology.
> >
> Gravity is evident though, it was there and we had to explain it. We
> don't suppose gravity as it's one of the 'beyond reasonable doubt'
> thing in our life. How it works is a different matter.
>
> A creator or evidence of creation is not evident so therefore both
> sides of you argument argue the same point - in essence 'There is a
> creator so there is a creator'. It's an argument that doesnt go
> anyhere.
Let me show you how your presuppositions cloud
your thoughts.
First, admit it, come on, you've never seen
aminos or some chemicals turned into anything.
Even your textbooks never said that some
chemicals or aminos turned into living cells.
Come on, admit it.
But you've witness dozens of ways that
intelligence has designed orderly things! Like
computer programmers designing programs.
You've never seen a random program designing
programs. They can't do it.
Admit it! Life is too complex - even at the cellular
level!
Come on, take charge, stand up for truth.
Hathaway5353
>
> Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
36a7ba24...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
> @nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
> X-Trace: 21 Jan 1999 23:46:28 GMT, 194.112.55.217
> Lines: 25> ><36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
> >>,
> > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:> >Since you're such a strong believer in
> >coincidence surely you could not grasp
> >the fact that the earth was created by a
> >creator.
>
> No evidence - no fact.
>
> Don't blame me - I didnt make up the rules of causality. If God did he
> put himself out of a job at the time of the big bang.
Come on, fess up. Admit it, the cell is too complex!
Don't you know anything about biology? Explain
to me how the cell replicates itself. It's all in the
details!
Dan Fake
I don't know what you've been smokin' or readin'
there buddy, but I'll stack the voluminous information
on the origins of the universe and life which are
available in legitimate scientific literature against the
wacko young earth BS you guys come up with any
day.
Oh, and by the way, science is ever open to investigating
and proving or disproving theories. No door goes left
unturned. Everything is open to debate. If you and
yours care to show up and convince science that the
earth was whipped up in 6 days, be my guest but I can
assure you that you're wasting your time.
Boikat
Obvious troll.
>
> Hathaway5353
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> If you want to know the real motives of
> the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
> their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
> freinds, take a gander at their
> hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
> attempts to deny creationists their right
> to "free" but unfree speech and their
> property rights as supposedly granted
> by the Constitution of the United States.
>
Lovely example of the name-calling you accuse others of.
The proof is in the pudding as we say.
Dr. Henke
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> You mean like teaching kids about Pilt Down man
> as fact? Nebraska Man (pig's tooth) as fact?
[snip]
KRH: The Piltdown and Nebraska Men were refuted long ago. To be exact,
the Nebraska Man was only accepted for a few years c. 1917 to the early
1920's. Science is self-correcting. Creationism is not. In 1986,
creationist Carl Baugh repeated the Nebraska Man error by constructing a
"Flood" victim, Glen Rose Man, from a fish tooth. Scientists corrected
him, although he refused to listen.
[snip]
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:First, admit it, come on, you've never seen
> aminos or some chemicals turned into anything.
> Even your textbooks never said that some
> chemicals or aminos turned into living cells.
> Come on, admit it.
>
And ?
>
> But you've witness dozens of ways that
> intelligence has designed orderly things! Like
> computer programmers designing programs.
>
And ? It would be a logical fallacy to infer from this that therefor everything "created"
is created.
>
> You've never seen a random program designing
> programs. They can't do it.
>
True but noone is claiming that a random program is all that was needed.
>
> Admit it! Life is too complex - even at the cellular
> level!
>
Too complex for what ?
>
> Come on, take charge, stand up for truth.
>
And you think you know what the truth is ? Based on what ?
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <
>
> Come on, fess up. Admit it, the cell is too complex!
>
Too complex for what ?
>
> Don't you know anything about biology? Explain
> to me how the cell replicates itself. It's all in the
> details!
>
Indeed, so perhaps you can share the details with us ? How exactly did God
create cells in detail ?
Pim van Meurs
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> You mean like teaching kids about Pilt Down man
> as fact? Nebraska Man (pig's tooth) as fact? As
Science is open to changes in interpretation. The speculative nature of science is no evidence
of it being wrong.
>
> the wrongheaded interpretation of Neanderthal
> Man as fact? As stating that there are 150
> vestigial forms in thehuman body as fact? As
> showing phoney apeman pictures and sculptures
> as fact? As telling kids that there are gill slits on
> human embryos as fact?
>
I guess that it is also fair to ask you "Telling kids that dinosaurs coexisted with man ? That
the earth is flat or that the earth is the centre of the Universe ?"
>
> A lot of scientific deception there, don't you
> think? The gill slits still appeared on some
> 1980s textbooks, and a phoney embryo chart
> appeared in a university textbook that my
> professor of biology had. And I had to embarrass
> him, didn't I? Poor me.
>
Are you saying that the gill slits are wrong or are you saying that the theory based upon this
are wrong.
Please feel free to embarass yourself.
Sylvan Korvus
wrote:
>Well, a Free Inquiry building is one thing, and a
>porno shop is another. I would probably be
>against a porno shop in my neighborhood but allow
>a Free Inquiry building. There's a difference you
>know. I mean, say that you have kids, OK. Do you
>want a porno store acrossed the street with all the
>riff raff that it brings? Don't think so.
I realize I probably shouldn't respond to this, since you are a troll, but:
You seem to feel that free speech should be allowable when you're in favor
of what's being said, and repressed when it's something you don't like.
That's called intolerance, and it leads to censorship.
I personally think a child's mild would be damaged more by religious
superstition masquerading as science than by ordinary pornography. Not to
mention the fundy types at a "Free Inquiry" building would be more
riffraffish than horny old men.
_________________________________________________
Sylvan Korvus ~ designer ~ syl...@nospam.home.com
Stewart Dean
>In article <
>36a88444...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> rp1.dejanews.com> <786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7896b7$4io$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
>> Path: 194.112.54.241
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.54.241
>> X-Trace: 22 Jan 1999 14:10:48 GMT, 194.112.54.241
>> Lines: 40
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
>>
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><786vhi$6pt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>>
>> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> In article <786g1b$pii$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>>
>> >> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> > In article
>>
>> >> > <781f2q$cui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> >> > hrgr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Tautology since a creation is something that has been created by a creator.
>> >> > > I.e. to show that something is a creation you must show the existence of a
>> >> > > creator first.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope. It's not tautology.
>> >>
>> >> "A creation demands a creator" is a direct consequence from the definition of
>> >> "creation", hence a tautology. See above.
>> >
>> >Nope. Just because gravity wasn't defined
>> >in the law doesn't mean it's a tautology.
>> >
>> Gravity is evident though, it was there and we had to explain it. We
>> don't suppose gravity as it's one of the 'beyond reasonable doubt'
>> thing in our life. How it works is a different matter.
>>
>> A creator or evidence of creation is not evident so therefore both
>> sides of you argument argue the same point - in essence 'There is a
>> creator so there is a creator'. It's an argument that doesnt go
>> anyhere.
>
>Let me show you how your presuppositions cloud
>your thoughts.
I hope you've got unsupposed alternative.
>First, admit it, come on, you've never seen
>aminos or some chemicals turned into anything.
I've never seen some chemicals turned into anything? You're kidding
right?
>Even your textbooks never said that some
>chemicals or aminos turned into living cells.
>Come on, admit it.
Did I say it was a fact we have proved? No - we have a lot of
evidence that points in it's way and it probable. We have many of the
links in the chain but, as others have said 'it's work in progress'.
Progress is definitly being made each day.
>But you've witness dozens of ways that
>intelligence has designed orderly things! Like
>computer programmers designing programs.
>
I'm also witness to evolution designing things! Computer programmers
now use evolution to create programs - often to breed algorithmns to
solve problems etc.
Man is good - nature is better. The only way to create a ecosystem
like that we have on our planet is to let it evolve. You cannot
design in bit by bit as you would mess up all the convergent evolution
issues. This is the nature of complex systems.
But then I think you've no idea what I'm on about do you? What do I
mean by convergent evolution?
>You've never seen a random program designing
>programs. They can't do it.
First evolution is not random for reasons I've probably explained
already and others will fill you in on.
Secondly if you think evolution is random then - according to you
logic - I have seen programs created by random.
http://research.de.uu.net:8080/encore/
>Admit it! Life is too complex - even at the cellular
>level!
>
Life is complex - that's why it works. Look up complex systems.
>Come on, take charge, stand up for truth.
I think it's about time you started coming up with usable theories. I
can keep on proving my points until the cows come home. It's about
time you had a go.
Stewart Dean
>In article <
>36a7ba24...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> @nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
>> Path: 194.112.55.217
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.55.217
>> X-Trace: 21 Jan 1999 23:46:28 GMT, 194.112.55.217
>> Lines: 25
>> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.32.19
>>
>> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><36a4682a...@news.dircon.co.uk
>> No evidence - no fact.
>>
>> Don't blame me - I didnt make up the rules of causality. If God did he
>> put himself out of a job at the time of the big bang.
>
>Come on, fess up. Admit it, the cell is too complex!
>
For what? We know about cells and we know about cellular automata -
based upon how cells interact. How cells work is no mystery to
science - but may be to you. Because you don't get it doesnt mean no
one else does!
>Don't you know anything about biology? Explain
>to me how the cell replicates itself. It's all in the
>details!
>
I'm not a biologist - I'm a generalist - so I'll leave the education
up to those who know more than me.
http://www.res.bbsrc.ac.uk/molbio/guide/cell.html
http://www.res.bbsrc.ac.uk/molbio/guide/links/cell.htm
Davidson
That's funny, I read about Piltdown man and the mistaken
interpretation of Neanderthal man in science books.
guess you're lying again.
Scott #1045
> They can't because they lied and they want
> believers in evolution and not disbelievers.
>
> Hathaway5353
>
> >
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > >If you want to know the real motives of
> > >the so-called "Free" Inquiry groups and
> > >their fellow "open-minded" evolutionist
> > >freinds, take a gander at their
> > >hypocritical, lying, self-righteous
> > >attempts to deny creationists their right
> > >to "free" but unfree speech and their
> > >property rights as supposedly granted
> > >by the Constitution of the United States.
Henry Barwood
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> And you're the one who thinks we're dumb enough
> not to decide for ourselves to know what is science
> or not.
I nominate this for Line-of-the-Month. Science is science. You can believe in it or not,
but you won't float off the Earth because you don't believe in the Theory of
Gravitational Attraction.
> If we're so dumb, why is that the popular
> media dominated by the evolutionists and
> humanists philosophy won't come out with
> exposes on the evolutionist hoaxes and scams: like
> the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, doctored
> embryos (gill slits on human fetuses) faked ape
> man paintings in the Smithsonian, phoney
> interpretation of Neanderthal Man, the once
> estimated 150 vestigial bodies in the human, and
> on and on it goes?
Someone is badly in need of a normal grade school education.
Sigh!
Barwood
Boikat
McNamlesses rants, but WTH...
Henry Barwood wrote:
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > And you're the one who thinks we're dumb enough
> > not to decide for ourselves to know what is science
> > or not.
So far you've shown that you are not qualified to
determine what is or is not science.
>
> I nominate this for Line-of-the-Month. Science is science. You can believe in it or not,
> but you won't float off the Earth because you don't believe in the Theory of
> Gravitational Attraction.
>
> > If we're so dumb, why is that the popular
> > media dominated by the evolutionists and
> > humanists philosophy won't come out with
> > exposes on the evolutionist hoaxes and scams: like
> > the Piltdown Man,
When Pilty was decisively found out to be a hoax,
was it supposed to be *The* story of the year?
> Nebraska Man,
Again, was the misidentification of the tooth
supposed to be front page material?
> doctored
> > embryos (gill slits on human fetuses)
You confuse one individuals actions as SOP with
all biologists. I guess since David Koresh was a
loon, all "christians are loons.
> > faked ape
> > man paintings in the Smithsonian,
And this means what? That there are paintings in
the Smithsonian that were supposedly painted by an
"ape man", or that there are paintings of "ape
man" in the Smithsonian that was not painted by
the person's who signed the paintings as the
artist? Or is it something stupid, like claiming
its a "fake" because said painting is no longer
considered accurate?
> > phoney
> > interpretation of Neanderthal Man,
Phony? In what way?
With your mentality, I suppose astronomers were
lying when they said that Saturn was the only
planet with a ring system prior to the Voyager
Missions that discovered rings around Jupiter,
Neptune and Uranus.
> > the once
> > estimated 150 vestigial bodies in the human, and
> > on and on it goes?
Are you saying that some of them are not
vestigial?
>
> Someone is badly in need of a normal grade school education.
It wouldn't do McNameless any good. He's sit
there and say "You're a liar!" whenever the
science teacher said "Good Morning class."
>
> Sigh!
>
> Barwood
Boikat
John Patrick
>>
>> But, assuming your characterization is correct, I agree with you that it is
>> wrong to use zoning laws to restrict free speech. Of course, the Christian
>> Coalition and other social conservatives have been using this technique for
>> years against "porno shops", topless bars and the like. Even here in the
>> modern Sodom and Gomorrah, New York City. As always, a lot depends on whose
>> ox is being gored!
>
>porno shop is another. I would probably be
>against a porno shop in my neighborhood but allow
>a Free Inquiry building. There's a difference you
>know. I mean, say that you have kids, OK. Do you
>want a porno store acrossed the street with all the
>riff raff that it brings? Don't think so.
>
I would MUCH rather live next door to a porno shop than a church.
The worst thing a porno shop customer might do is masturbate on my
lawn. A church goer might find out I'm and Atheist, confuse it with
Abortionist, and shoot me.
John Patrick
==============================================================
"If you're so Pro-life and you're so Pro-child, then adopt one
that's already here that's very unwanted and very alone, and
needs someone to take care of it to get it out of a horrible
situation. Ok. People say 'Well, why don't you do that?', and
I say 'Cause I hate fucking kids and couldn't care less'."
- Bill Hicks
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<78dg2a$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> >78bsl8$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Creation Science is not science. It's religion.
> >> It's Anti-science. It's a desperate attempt to
> >> convince itself that the propaganda foisted
> >> on them in their childhood was not a lie, that
> >> their mentoring influence (most likely, their
> >> parents) and social groups (most likely,
> >> churches) are A-OK - sane - on the level,
> >> that eternal life is available for them and their
> >> kind (irregardless of evidence to the contrary)
> >> just by wanting it to be true.
> >>
> >> Maybe if they re-file as NUTS they'll have a
> >> shot. As AIG, they haven't got a prayer.
> >
> >not to decide for ourselves to know what is science
> >media dominated by the evolutionists and
> >humanists philosophy won't come out with
> >exposes on the evolutionist hoaxes and scams: like
> >embryos (gill slits on human fetuses) faked ape
> >man paintings in the Smithsonian, phoney
> >interpretation of Neanderthal Man, the once
> >estimated 150 vestigial bodies in the human, and
> >on and on it goes?
> >
> >believers in evolution and not disbelievers.
> >
> >Hathaway5353
>
> there buddy, but I'll stack the voluminous information
> on the origins of the universe and life which are
> available in legitimate scientific literature against the
> wacko young earth BS you guys come up with any
> day.
>
> Oh, and by the way, science is ever open to investigating
> and proving or disproving theories. No door goes left
> unturned. Everything is open to debate. If you and
> yours care to show up and convince science that the
> earth was whipped up in 6 days, be my guest but I can
> assure you that you're wasting your time.
I don't know what you've been smokin'
but what do you think of the numerous
scientists who are EXPERTS in their field
of study who say their is no evidence for
evolution in their area of study?
It's only the generalists who call that
believe evolution to be infallible.
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36AA4841...@prodigy.net>,
"Dr. Henke" <yvoa...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>
>
> hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > You mean like teaching kids about Pilt Down man
> > as fact? Nebraska Man (pig's tooth) as fact?
>
>
> KRH: The Piltdown and Nebraska Men were refuted long ago. To be exact,
> the Nebraska Man was only accepted for a few years c. 1917 to the early
> 1920's. Science is self-correcting. Creationism is not. In 1986,
> creationist Carl Baugh repeated the Nebraska Man error by constructing a
> "Flood" victim, Glen Rose Man, from a fish tooth. Scientists corrected
> him, although he refused to listen.
No one in the current creationist world
takes Carl Baugh seriously.
Hathaway5353
>
> [snip]
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36AA660F...@eskimo.com>,
Pim van Meurs <ent...@eskimo.com>
wrote:
>
> Science is open to changes in interpretation. The speculative nature of science is no evidence
> of it being wrong.
>
> >
> > the wrongheaded interpretation of Neanderthal
> > Man as fact? As stating that there are 150
> > vestigial forms in thehuman body as fact? As
> > showing phoney apeman pictures and sculptures
> > as fact? As telling kids that there are gill slits on
> > human embryos as fact?
> >
>
> I guess that it is also fair to ask you "Telling kids that dinosaurs coexisted with man ?
It's Ok to tell kids that dinosaurs
coexisted with man. Unless you want to
lie to them and tell them that the
Matterhorn is not "Old strata" on top of
"young strata." Proves evolution wrong.
But the hundreds and thousands of other
evolution refuting facts surely put to
shame evolutionary religionists who use
science as a cover for their materalism.
Hathaway5353
That
> the earth is flat or that the earth is the centre of the Universe ?"
>
> >
> > A lot of scientific deception there, don't you
> > think? The gill slits still appeared on some
> > 1980s textbooks, and a phoney embryo chart
> > appeared in a university textbook that my
> > professor of biology had. And I had to embarrass
> > him, didn't I? Poor me.
> >
>
> Are you saying that the gill slits are wrong or are you saying that the theory based upon this
> are wrong.
> Please feel free to embarass yourself.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
hathaw...@my-dejanews.com
<36A9F932...@bellsouth.net>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> winge...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <78bqga$coo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > hathaw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > from the other side? You know, come out with a balanced story so that
> > everybody can make up their own mind?
>
> Kentucky, the "museum, nature park, and office
> complex" also included either a several hundred
> foot tall Cross or Jesus statue (similar the the
> "Christ of the Andes"), that was going to be
> illuminated by spotlights at night, IIRC. Though
> it would surely have been a sight to see, the
> locals that objected because the "Theme Park",
> which is what they were calling it a few years
> ago, would have disrupted the local rural setting
> that the park was planned for.
Yep. I believe. As if the Free Inquiry
people actually cared about that.
Hathaway5353
>
> Boikat