Origin Models
Andrew
>
"It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
Therefore the above statement, "intelligent design has no basis in science,
has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific"
would also apply to the naturalistic origins model. That is, origins apart from
a Higher intelligent input and purpose .
Variations among living things is not contested, the real controversy has to
do with............ origins.
Andrew
Ralph
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:BOmdnZ4nEchcH0TV...@earthlink.com...
Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
John Baker
wrote:
<sigh> The cluelessness of the "faithful."
>
>
>Andrew
>
Andrew
> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>
There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
active role in their creation.
The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
a Higher Power.
Andrew
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>
> > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>
> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
creation?
Answer: None.
What evidence is there supporting natural abiogenesis?
We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html
We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx
We know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
We know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
We also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
We know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
We know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
We know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
We know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
We know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
What's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Origin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
How could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
Same errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
The evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Feathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Different species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
robots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm
You LIED. You lose.
> Therefore the above statement, "intelligent design has no basis in science,
> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific"
> would also apply to the naturalistic origins model.
You LIED. You lose.
You want to claim "Godidit" then bring your positive scientific
evidence *for* a creation. Post it right here.
I'll be delighted to formally debate it with you right here.
> Variations among living things is not contested, the real controversy has to
> do with............ origins.
There is no controversy. That's another LIE.
I'm sorry your religious mythology puts you repeatedly in the position
where you are focrced to LIE. But that's something you have to come
to terms with.
Meanwhile I'll be waiting right here for you to bring your positive
science *for* a creation. See you soon.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
Budikka
MarkA
> "Ralph" wrote in message news:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>
>
>
> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
> active role in their creation.
>
"Higher Intelligence" alone would not be sufficient. It would have to be
a "Higher Intelligence" that had magical powers. As soon as you invoke
magical powers, you are, by definition, no longer talking science.
> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein are
> the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from a
> Higher Power.
>
>
>
> Andrew
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
adman
great post. Thanks
Ralph
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:18088e06-c000-4e2a...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
My question involved the ID origins 'model'. Upon what basis does the higher
intelligent model exist?
Ralph
"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
news:NVzCk.40156$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
You wouldn't know a great post, Assman. You've never made one before.
Andrew, you're a pretty sharp theist, tell me if you would, how god gathered
the raw materials for the creation of the universe and how did he use his
voice to arrange these materials?
adman
I would go with the one that has 10,000 yrs worth of history.
The one that says evolution has never been observed.
adman
What is magical to you may be a simple feat in another dimention
>>
>>
>> Andrew
The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
> On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
> > has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>
> > > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>
> > Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
> > and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
> > model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>
> Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
> creation?
>
> Answer: None.
>
> What evidence is there supporting natural abiogenesis?
> We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
> building blocks of life, back in 1953:http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
>
> We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
> variety of simulated early Earth environments:http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html
>
> We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
> Early human evolution:http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
> Same errors in human and chimp DNA:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
> Humans and chimps not so different:http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
> The evidence for human evolution:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> Transitional snake with legs:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
> Fossil bridges land and sea:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
> Feathery fossil shed light on origins:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
> Archaeopteryx:http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
> wings for speed:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Thanks for the post. It was well-argued and I have enjoyed many of
the links.
Syd M.
IOW, you chose fantasy over reality.
Typical.
PDW
Tim Miller
bob young
MarkA wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:50:16 -0700, Andrew wrote:
>
> > "Ralph" wrote in message news:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
> >>
> >
> >
> > There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
> > and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
> > active role in their creation.
> >
>
> "Higher Intelligence" alone would not be sufficient. It would have to be
> a "Higher Intelligence" that had magical powers. As soon as you invoke
> magical powers, you are, by definition, no longer talking science.
You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price
he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]
bob young
adman wrote:
You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries
of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is
the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite
intelligent enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew
Alex W.
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:48DC4190...@netvigator.com...
> You never see animals going through the absurd and often
> horrible fooleries
> of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such
> gratuitous folly. It is
> the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as
> yet, quite
> intelligent enough.
> [Aldous Leonard Huxley]
I don't know about that.
Some dogs and their masters -- it gets awfully close to
worship.
Elijahovah
And then you imagine in your own scientififc mind
ways in which spacheship aliens can do the same
things as God in instant ways by performing super-science.
It is like the way you publish living 400 years if science
tinkers with DNA and yet you cannot believe God
can tinker with DNA without man doing so.
Or of course those spaceship aliens.
Even the words of Paul you ignore when he said
quit making life in heaven a topic of false ellaboration
because if there is a physical body there is also a
spiritual body. He did not say, nor was he saying that
if all humans have a physical body
that then they also have a spritual body. There is no
scientififc reasoning in saying such. But rather he
was saying do not worry what life in heaven or
what a body in heaven would be or will be like,
because accept the simple fact that if earthly life
has physical bodies that heavenly has all its
spiritual bodies. So he has never said that earthly
\physical bodies contain spritual bodies. He is saying
that anyone given a heavenly life will be given a
spiritual body to live in that spiritual world.
No hwere does he claim that you already have
such a body. He does not say if man has a physical
that man also has a spiritual. He said if Earth has physical
bodies then heaven has its spiritual bodies,
Neither of you people look at truth, but you both
play the games with words since the days of Babel.
And yet the concept of one language becoming
2 and 3 and 4 actually started when Eve heard in
her mind different than Adam, and Abel heard different
than Cain. Quit the confusion, stop it, grow up.
You dont twist other peoples words to win;
because it will be God who wins, and it will prove
scientific.
ELIJAH
your destruction while you quibble
because both sides of you dont see the storm
Michelle Malkin
"Elijahovah" <rsch...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9c7fb557-f17c-4339...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Shot up any Post Offices lately, Richard?
adman
More like "Shot up" what kinda drugs.
Budikka666
Since you put so much faith and stock in this god of yours, you
presumably have evidence that he, she, or it exists. Please bring
this *objective* evidence *for* your god right here to this thread and
let's formally debate it, you and me.
I'm waiting.
Budikka
Budikka666
Then you'd be wrong as your fellow Christian Dr Wiens already pointed
out to you:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
Notice Chicken LIAR Adman here using the same fraudulent technique
that got Chicken Gabriel's ass kicked over and over again back in the
early summer this year?
Note that Chicken Adman has had his sorry, LYING hypocritical ignorant
ass kicked so many times that he's desperate to find a topic he can
hide behind to try to disguise the patently transparent fact that he's
RUNNING from these two simple questions:
1. Can you show us positive scientific evidence *for* a creation
OR
2. Can you show us negative scientific evidence *against* evolution?
We have a de facto admission from him (and *every single creationist
on planet Earth) that he cannot, and a much more recent admission,
outright, that evolution is a fact.
Scared to death of this exposure and desperate to find yet another
smoke-screen behind which he can hide his cowardly vacuous dumb ass,
Chicken Adman is now LYING about the definition of evolution.
The actual definition most widely in use is this one from Chicken
Adman's favorite resource, wikipedia:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited
traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
Chicken Adman, who has no qualifications whatsoever in biology or any
other science related to evolution, arrogantly demands that he
redefine evolution his own way or he's not playing.
He wants it to read "There's no such thing as evolution unless it was
directly seen by the unaided eyes of a currently living human being."
Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
If Chicken Adman's asinine definition were appropriate, then he should
be advocating the freedom of every single incarcerated person the
world over **unless someone actually saw them commit their crime*.
Is he doing that? I hope not. But the fact that he isn't proves his
dishonesty.
The reason we can put criminals in jail even if there crime was not
committed is that all the prosecution has to do is prove a crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
And note the important point here. If an accused is found not guilty,
then this does not automatically put an alternate person behind bars
for that crime.
This is all that science has to do, too.
Chicken Adman LIES again. This is the question he lies I never
answered when the TRUTH is that I gave him 666 examples of macro-
evolution, many of which were observed instances of evolution:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
Here's more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
This reference includes this: "Formation of five new species of
cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000
years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago."
In a separate thread in this "Proving Evolution" series, I listed
references to horse evolution. This is a case where directly in the
fossil record scientists have **OBSERVED** evolution in action,
proving Chicken Adman to be an ignoramus or a LIAR or both.
So why is it that when we anser all Chicken Adman's questions in
detail, directly, with supporting science, he runs away and changes
the question, BUT HE WILL NEVER ANSWER ANY OF OURS, NOT EVEN TWO
SIMPLE ONES LIKE THESE:
1. Do you have any positive scientific evidence *for* a creation?
OR
2. Do you have any negative *scientific evidence *against* evolution?
The questions are simple, straight-forward, no tricks or traps.
If Chicken Adman had asked them, or questions like them, any one of us
would have answered with supporting references.
Yet no matter how many times he is asked them, he RUNS AWAY and
demands that we answer ever more of his questions.
Is this the hallmark of a decent, intelligent honest person, or is it
the hallmark of LYING scum? You decide.
Budikka
adman
> On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
>> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
> Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
> thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
Tim Miller
there is...
It's YOUR strawman, YOU beat it up, liar.
bob young
"Alex W." wrote:
My dogs think I am a god; they are wrong too
Alex W.
It's a nice feeling, though .....
;-)
Budikka666
When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
that's all you'll ever be..
It's that simple.
Meanwhile keep running from all the scientific evidence I posted which
you have snipped uncommented from your replies you pathetic dishonest
scum.
Budikka
Budikka666
facts. No surprises there.
How easy it must be for you pathetic LYING cowardly hypocritical scum
of creationists to post endless messages on Usenet telling knee-jerk
LIES about evolution when you never have to support a single thing you
claim.
Meanwhile, the atheists engaged in these exchanges have posted
reference after reference after reference backed by 150 years of hard
science confirming the Theory of Evolution.
In future, creationist LIARS, don't both to post anything to
alt.atheism until and unless you can support your claims with hard
science.
Got it?
Budikka
bob young
"Alex W." wrote:
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:48DDA828...@netvigator.com...
> >
> >
> > "Alex W." wrote:
> >
> >> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> >> news:48DC4190...@netvigator.com...
> >>
> >> > You never see animals going through the absurd and
> >> > often
> >> > horrible fooleries
> >> > of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such
> >> > gratuitous folly. It is
> >> > the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not,
> >> > as
> >> > yet, quite
> >> > intelligent enough.
> >> > [Aldous Leonard Huxley]
> >>
> >> I don't know about that.
> >> Some dogs and their masters -- it gets awfully close to
> >> worship.
> >
> > My dogs think I am a god; they are wrong too
> >
>
> It's a nice feeling, though .....
not so sure, asked one of mine what he thought of me
all he would comment was "Rough"
>
>
> ;-)
Wombat
Another report for you to hand wave away:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7639024.stm
"Earth's most ancient rocks, with an age of 4.28 billion years, have
been found on the shore of Hudson Bay, Canada. Writing in Science
journal, a team reports finding that a sample of Nuvvuagittuq
greenstone is 250 million years older than any rocks known.
It may even hold evidence of activity by ancient life forms."
Wombat
(still holding that macro)
Andrew
"adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> > I would go with the one that has 10,000 yrs worth of history.
> >
> > The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>
> IOW, you chose fantasy over reality.
> Typical.
Those who choose the macro-evolutionally theory of how man
came to be, are the ones who choose FANTASY over reality.
FROG BECOMES PRINCE BY A KISS = FAIRY TALE
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote:
>> > Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>
>> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>> active role in their creation.
>>
>> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
>> a Higher Power.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
> evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
> professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
> people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
> side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
Both models have the same evidence. The difference is in how evidence
is interpreted. To me it is obvious that our universe and the living things
therein are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an active role in its
creation. Naturalistic factors such as -horizontal- variation within genetic
boundaries will occur, because it is in the genetic code to do so; and
"code" implies intelligence.
Andrew
adman
> On Sep 26, 4:56 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>>> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>>> Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
>>> thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>>
>> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>
> When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
> that's all you'll ever be..
>
> It's that simple.
You got bones and guesses.
You also have no testable model.
too bad, so sad.. for you
>
> Meanwhile keep running from all the scientific evidence I posted which
> you have snipped uncommented from your replies you pathetic dishonest
> scum.
>
> Budikka
--
This has been another edcuational moment for you, provided by.....
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^
Andrew
> "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> > "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>> >> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>> > Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
>> > thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>>
>> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>
> When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> seriously.
Rather the onus is on you to provide -empirical evidence- for the 4B.
> Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
> that's all you'll ever be..
Those who act up like this show their immaturity and that they are
standing on a false foundation which is unable to hold up under the
searchlight of truth. They respond with anger, emotion and vitriol,
as if acting up this way would defend their false structure. Since
they have not truth and will not accept truth, they feel they have
but no other option.
> It's that simple.
That's right.
Tim Miller
> Budikka666 wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 4:56 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>>>> Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
>>>> thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>>> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>> When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
>> seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
>> that's all you'll ever be..
>>
>> It's that simple.
>
> You got bones and guesses.
>
> You also have no testable model.
>
> too bad, so sad.. for you
Hell, sonny, even if you WERE correct, that would STILL be
better than Bronze Age myths and an invisible sky pixie!
LOL!!
Syd M.
> "Syd M." wrote in messagenews:e9566723-c33a-49d2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No.
Your wishful thinking will not make the facts go away.
PDW
Andrew
> Andrew.. tell me if you would, how god gathered the raw
> materials for the creation of the universe..
I believe He creates matter from energy. This is my
belief. What is your belief as to the origin of matter?
Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:ec58f8a0-031e-4116...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >> > "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
> >> > Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
> >> > thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
> >>
> >> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
> >
> > When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> > seriously.
>
> Rather the onus is on you to provide -empirical evidence- for the 4B.
What science HAS found is compatible with an earth age of billions of
years and evolution, but, unless one postulates a deliberately deceitful
god, is not compatible with creationism.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> Those who choose the macro-evolutionally theory of how man
> came to be, are the ones who choose FANTASY over reality.
>
>
> FROG BECOMES PRINCE BY A KISS = FAIRY TALE
>
> FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX
That particular hoax is one hawked only by creationists and like idiots.
FROG AND MAN HAVE COMMON ANCESTOR = TRUE
FROG AND MAN HAVE TOO MUCH COMMON DNA TO BE TOTALLY UNRELATED = TRUE
Only a maliciously deceitful god would have created a world full of
evidence of what did not happen.
If such a god did exist, no sane person would want any part of
him/her/it.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:18088e06-c000-4e2a...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
In short, you admit here in these world-wide public fora that you have
*NO* positive scientific evidence *for* a creation and *NO* scientific
evidence *against* evolution.
You also admit publicly here in these world-wide fora that whilst you
can *claim* all you want that one "kind" doesn't change to another
"kind", science has proven you wrong in multiple ways, and you have
absolutely no scientific rebuttal whatsoever.
All you have, as you admit above, is your personal opinion born of
ignorance and dogma.
Thanks for playing.
Next please, right this way.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 4:56 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> >>>> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
> >>> Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
> >>> thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>
> >> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>
> > When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> > seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
> > that's all you'll ever be..
>
> > It's that simple.
>
> You got bones and guesses.
>
> You also have no testable model.
Since you already admitted to evolution, you already admitted there is
speciation, you already admitted you have no positive science *for* a
creation and no science *against* evolution, you're done.
bob young
Virgil wrote:
Aye.......... but we are not dealing with sanity here
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
Then 'He' should have been busy doing just that instead of bothering Moses up
on that mountain top where the primitives of the time thought their god lived.
You do accept, I trust, that your belief system is, in it's entirety, based on
what was supposed to have happened two thousand years ago ? There is a book
claimed to be devoted to exactly that period.
What was your god doing ten thousand years ago? You do not have a clue. So
why, eight thousand plus years later did that god suddenly decide to tell Homo
Sapiens [who had already been around for millions of years] that 'He had
created them in 'His' own image' ? Or is that story simply the result of human
primeval religious arrogance and urges ?
Why would a god, so powerful that it could create matter, bother creating a son
on earth who, on dying and coming to life again, it is said - 'floated slowly
skywards to sit alongside Him' where we now fly commercial jet aircraft ?
It is fully covered in the old book of fables which no one quoted from ten
thousand years ago, let alone when matter was being created, assuming of course
matter was ever created, having been there all the time. The important thing
to realise is - we will never know and what is more important Homo Sapiens will
not last long enough to find out. When we have disappeared, this world, this
universe, will carry on as before - no questions asked.
If the latest scientific estimates are close, then this universe has been
around for over twenty billion years. Using a clock face as an analogy, this
means homo sapiens has only been around for about two minutes before midnight,
so in another five minutes, more than likely, we will all be gone.
No more 'man'................ no more 'gods'
Mind you - the five minutes left for Homo Sapiens is a highly optimistic
estimate - we will no doubt wipe ourselves out long before that in an
interdenominational nuclear war between Islam and Christianity, a kind of
'Extension of the Crusades'. Every one burned up prematurely, all in the name
of imaginary deities.
johac
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in
> science,
> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
> scientific."
> > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>
> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the
> universe
> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>
> Therefore the above statement, "intelligent design has no basis in science,
> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific"
> would also apply to the naturalistic origins model. That is, origins apart
> from
> a Higher intelligent input and purpose .
So where is you evidence for an intelligent designer? Admit it. You have
none. Science marches on and leaves superstition choking in the dust.
>
--
John #1782
Pastor Frank
news:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:BOmdnZ4nEchcH0TV...@earthlink.com...
>
> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>
someone to flame?
Basically ID is NOT evolution. Normally only atheists look for what is
not, false, lies, erroneous and scams. But when it comes to ID we can play
the same game, by merely claiming the primitive Darwinism is wrong,
unproved, impossible statistically, not evidenced except for minor changes
within species, never across species etc. etc. and because of it's weak
foundation it must be propped up by censorship in classrooms and legal
edicts from the courts. See below
Pastor Frank
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable,
and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."
- Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pastor Frank
news:7a41c818-93f7-4d93...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...>> messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in
>> science,
>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
>> scientific."
>>
>> > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>
>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the
>> universe
>> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>
> creation? Answer: None.
<snip pro-evolution rant>
>
Of course believers in scientism are simple minded enough to also
believe in the Piltdown man, but have nothing but disdain for these eminent
scientists quoted below and who have problems with primitive Darwinism. It's
all part of atheist doctrine.
Pastor Frank
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the
evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have
abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical
persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances,
regretfully."
- Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician
"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than
ever before."
- Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.
Evolution belief is a cult... no scientific proof to support it.
Read full report here... http://www.y-origins.com/pdf_links/18_22.pdf
http://evolution-facts.org/introductory_scientists_speak_about_evolution_1.htm
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable,
and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."
- Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.
"Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled
upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"
- George Greenstein
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have
begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create
beings like us."
- Stephen Hawking
"The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically
designed for us."
- Stephen Hawking
"I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of
what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply to complex to have evolved
randomly. Intelligence was required to produce them."
- Michael J. Behe
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no
publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty
journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real,
complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are
supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."
- Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box The Free Press, p. 185
An article in U.S. News & World Report remarks, "So far no theory is
even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take
the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially
explains the propitious universe in this way: 'Well, we got lucky.' "
- Gregg Easterbrook, "Before the Big Bang," U.S. News & World Report,
special edition, 2003, 16.
If someone won even two lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the
results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our
universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball
lotteries consecutively. Physicist Paul Davies comments, "The conclusion
must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood."
- Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), p169.
Donald Page of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study has calculated
that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life
is one out of 10124, a number beyond imagination.
- Dietrick E. Thompsen, "The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point
Fluctuation?" Science News, August 3, 1985, p73.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
more than 40 years have completely failed."
- N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist
"Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not
produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve
as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus,
by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge
the very existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of
biologically important organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical
evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a
number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that
even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would
have been too small to be meaningful for pre-biotic evolution."
- Noam Lahav (1999) Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins Oxford
University Press, 1999, p138-139
"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop
independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in
known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize
spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem
of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the
surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of
reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is
negligible."
- Orgel, Leslie (1998) "The origin of life -- a review of facts and
speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp.
494-495)
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts
of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could
have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in
the highest degree."
- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties"
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove
that a single species has been changed."
- Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do
we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature
in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them,
well-defined species?"
- Charles Darwin, in H. Enoch's, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence
in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. The success of
Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
- W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the
Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental
imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system
without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called."
- David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is
statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number
of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a
free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by
the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz
calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000 (ten to the one
hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the
proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000 (ten to
the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are
staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery
every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of
a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of
spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado
sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein.
It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that
we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent
design.
-- Francis Collins, who Cracked the Genome said: I've found God. -
The Sunday Times - Wikipedia Evolution and Creation Studies - Koinonia
House. In The Beginning There Was...Information - Audio CD - eNews Special
Offer
The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it
this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life
from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled
organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous
generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping
through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is
impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we
not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent
design.
- Francis Collins, who Cracked the Genome.
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the
biologicalworld is the notion of Special Creation."
- Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American
Museum of Natural History
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
- H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31
(1980), p. 138
"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie
between species, the more they have been frustrated."
- John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek,
Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just
clearly and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead
of finding a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we
invariably find large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general
theory of evolution."
- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic
dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this
area, all is conjecture The available facts do not provide a basis for
postulating that cells arose on this planet .... We simply wish to point
out the fact that there is no scientific evidence."
- David Green and Robert Goldberger (1967) Molecular Insights Into the
Living Process New York: Academic Press, pp. 406-407 (David Green is a
biochemist at the University of Wisconsin. Robert Goldberger is a biochemist
at the National Institute of Health
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard
table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two
factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First,
the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal -
ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and
the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can
be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing
quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the
notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide
the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led
evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
- John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol.
89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805
"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection,
acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which
are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation
as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own
distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is
inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates
retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a
great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever
being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an
infinitely high order."
- H.S. Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at
random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it
becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics, on
which life depends, are in every respect deliberate...
- Sir Fred Hoyle
"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a
reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is
complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?" -
-Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis
(London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."
--Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
[Australian molecular biologist].
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
universe."
-- Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67
[Australian molecular biologist].
"Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological
system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and
absolute as it is possible to conceive."
- Denton, Michael MD of Bethesda: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler
and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250
"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to
another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural
selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of
putting them to the test."
- Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89
"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a
transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the
transformation of one basically different type to another."
- Luther Sutherland, science researcher
"Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say
THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of
Natural History. Dr. Colin Patterson was the senior paleontologist and
editor of the prestigious journal of the British Museum of Natural History.
He wrote in a letter, that he didn't know of any real evidence of
evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.
-- "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther Sunderland ch.1
"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if
we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
- Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist
"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have
even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it
becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination
for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever
were geologic periods."
- John Woodmorappe, geologist
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and
more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical
scientific knowledge."
- Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University
"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in
producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations.
Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has
been universally accepted."
- Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in
Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press
"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake,
untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its
intent."
- Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History
"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and
manifestation of the organic world."
-- Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution
or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
- Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science,
in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie
around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into
words."
- Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267
"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that
runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."
- Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind
of evolution."
- Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the
realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the
product of imagination."
-- Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a
single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived.
They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."
-- Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at
present, still an article of faith."
-- J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves
facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually
nothing of growth, nothing of life."
-- W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life,"
New York Times.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the
evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for
any group being the descendant of almost any other."
-- J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently
assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying
reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the
world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is
also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should
not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously
liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from
a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it
interfered with our sexual freedom."
-- Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report:
Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist
Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of
evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential
liberal writers of the 20th century].
"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I
find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe
was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in
consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."
-- Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of
Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing
in the progress of science. It is useless."
-- Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research
at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as
ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used
only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which
such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies
and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not
scientific theories at all."
-- R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American
Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was..
it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and
there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that
one can be so misled so long, so for the last few weeks I have tried putting
a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one
thing that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of
Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on
the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of
Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
silence for a long time and eventually one person said: "I do know one
thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of
Natural History, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History,
NYC.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con-men, And the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
-- Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
-- Sir Arthur Keith, author of the forward to the 100th anniversary
edition of "Origin of Species" in 1959
Pastor Frank
> On Sep 24, 11:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote in
>> messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>>
>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>> active role in their creation.
>> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
>> a Higher Power.
>> Andrew
>
> And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
> evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
> professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
> people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
> side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
>\
Wrong!!! Evolution needs the courts to prop it up and impose censorship
on all discussion of alternative models.
Pastor Frank
> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
> news:NVzCk.40156$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>>>>
>>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis
>>> in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be
>>> regarded as scientific."
>>>> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>>
>>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of
>>> the universe and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to
>>> any origins
>>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~
>>> experimentally.
>>> science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded
>>> is, origins apart from a Higher intelligent input and purpose .
>>> has to do with............ origins.
>>> Andrew
>>
>> great post. Thanks
>
> You wouldn't know a great post, Assman. You've never made one before.
> Andrew, you're a pretty sharp theist, tell me if you would, how god
> gathered the raw materials for the creation of the universe and how did he
> use his voice to arrange these materials?
>
That is of course the big question, for this can only be true in a
virtual reality, which atheists discount pro forma, but for which they lack
evidence to the contrary. We Christians believe, also sans evidence, that
there may be a multitude of realities, this one in the here and now being
only one of them, and that on death we will go to the next reality, which
will likely be heaven or hell, ...the destination being your choice alone.
In heaven you will be joyful and spend eternity praising and glorifying,
and those in hell are permanently dissatisfied and therefore wail complaints
eternally, ...an activity btw atheists posting here like to practice
assiduously in preparation thereof.
Pastor Frank
news:9emkd4lvuashdc9jd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:58:54 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>>"Budikka666" wrote in message
>>news:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in
>> science,
>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
>> scientific."
>>> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>
>>Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the
>>universe
>>and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
>>model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>>Therefore the above statement, "intelligent design has no basis in
>>science,
>>has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
>>scientific"
>>would also apply to the naturalistic origins model. That is, origins apart
>>from
>>a Higher intelligent input and purpose .
>>Variations among living things is not contested, the real controversy has
>>to
>>do with............ origins.
>
>
Atheism has spoken and it has the law on its side, imposing censorship,
prohibiting any alternative models to evolution to be discussed, or even
mentioned in class, including the existence of eminent scientists like those
below, who confess having problems with primitive Darwinism.
Atheism imposes evolution by law.
Pastor Frank
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pastor Frank
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:18088e06-c000-4e2a...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 24, 11:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Ralph" wrote in
>>> messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> > Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>>
>>> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>>> active role in their creation.
>>>
>>> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>>> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
>>> a Higher Power.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
>> evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
>> professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
>> people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
>> side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
>> Budikka
>
> higher intelligent model exist?
On the basis that only God is real and the universe is in fact virtual,
meaning that what you call reality is in fact virtual reality and any
evidence you can mount to the contrary is also merely virtual. See the
Biblical evidence for this possibility below.
It must always remain a possibility, because there can be no evidence
for nor against it, ...but it would explain everything. That is also why
religion is a matter of belief and faith, never a matter of facts in
evidence.
Pastor Frank
Acts:17:28: For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:18088e06-c000-4e2a...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 24, 11:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Ralph" wrote in
>>> messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> >
>>> > Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>>
>>> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>>> active role in their creation.
>>> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>>> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
>>> a Higher Power.
>>> Andrew
>>
>> And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
>> evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
>> professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
>> people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
>> side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
>> Budikka
>>\
> Wrong!!! Evolution needs the courts to prop it up and impose censorship
>on all discussion of alternative models.
You are a stinking liar. What a pathetic fake you are. You are another
in a long series of self-described Christians who worships ignorance and
treats lying as a sacrament. How pathetic. Keep it up, you are doing an
excellent job of driving people from belief.
>Pastor Frank
>
[misleading, out of context, misunderstood, and other such quotations
deleted because Pastor Frank cannot be bothered to learn a thing about
science]
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:BOmdnZ4nEchcH0TV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>
> Are you REALLY interested, or just looking for something to trash and
>someone to flame?
> Basically ID is NOT evolution. Normally only atheists look for what is
>not, false, lies, erroneous and scams. But when it comes to ID we can play
>the same game, by merely claiming the primitive Darwinism is wrong,
Of course your claim is false, a lie, indefensible.
>unproved, impossible statistically, not evidenced except for minor changes
>within species, never across species etc. etc. and because of it's weak
>foundation it must be propped up by censorship in classrooms and legal
>edicts from the courts. See below
>
>Pastor Frank
>
> "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable,
>and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."
> - Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
You lie by misleading, but mostly, you lie because you worship
Ignorance.
Terence J Rigby
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:a0087$48e8c709$28...@news.teranews.com...
I see you are quote mining (yet again). The one regarding Darwin and the
eye is blatant. I told you about a year or so ago where you could research
it for the dross it is. Why do you repeat things you should know by now are
lies?
Wombat
Tim Miller
>>
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> I see you are quote mining (yet again). The one regarding Darwin and the
> eye is blatant. I told you about a year or so ago where you could research
> it for the dross it is. Why do you repeat things you should know by now are
> lies?
>
> Wombat
>
>
More importantly, why did you have to quote the whole
friggin' 500 lines to make your point?? :-)
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>>
>> > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>
>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
>> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>
>Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
>creation?
The moment you challenge her, she'll kill file you and then public ally accuse
you of running away from her.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Tim Miller
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
>>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>>>
>>>> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
>>> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
>>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>> Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
>> creation?
>
> The moment you challenge her, she'll kill file you and then public ally accuse
> you of running away from her.
No one has killfiled YOU, poindexter...
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Right. Prayer. The idea that their god's plans for them are SO
unimportant that, if you ASK him nicely, he'll change them.
Anyone who thinks that ANY god would LISTEN to you fucking
whiners is an idiot.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7a41c818-93f7-4d93...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in
> >> science,
> >> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
> >> scientific."
>
> >> > http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>
> >> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the
> >> universe
> >> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
> >> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>
> > Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
> > creation? Answer: None.
>
> <snip pro-evolution rant>
evolution is presented, and dishonestly pretend it doesn't count.
Avoiding the evidence, side-stepping it, pretending that it doesn't
exist is not the same as refuting or rebutting it. You do understand
that, don't you?
> Of course believers in scientism are simple minded enough to also
> believe in the Piltdown man, but have nothing but disdain for these eminent
> scientists quoted below and who have problems with primitive Darwinism. It's
> all part of atheist doctrine.
>
> Pastor Frank
[snipped irrelevant quote-mining]
If you feel you have a case for a creation, then bring your evidence
right here and let's you and me formally debate it. How about it?
The ball is in your court. If you have a problem with evolution, then
it's entirely up to you to bring the counter evidence, Bring your
positive science *for* creation, or bring your science which refutes
evolution, and let's you and me debate it.
Failing that, bring your intelligently argued rationale against
evolution and let's debate that.
The case for evolution has been made for 150 years. In that entire
time-period, the case for creation has failed to materialize. Why is
that? There was a time, 150 years ago, when creation held the day.
Most everyone believed the Bible story of a god creating everything
from nothing in six days just 6,000 or so years ago.
That was the dogma. That was the establishment. That was what was
taught in schools.
So I don't want to hear your whining about how "Big Bad Evolution"
keeps honest science down. That's nothing but nonsense and sour
grapes.
Where was "Big Bad Evolution" 150 years ago? Nowhere. You
creationists were in power. You held the sway. You were in charge.
So what happened with that?
I'll tell you what happened.
If you know anything about science, then you must undertsand that it's
not based on listing ten quotes taken out of context. It's not based
on some person's authority. It isn't based on religious dogma. It
isn't based on Biblical revelation. It's not based on lining up 500
people who say this, that, or the other thing.
It's based entirely on the weight of the evidence, and the weight of
150 years of evidence is *all* in favor of evolution. All of it
supports Darwin's basic theory, and more is added every day.
This evidence is published world-wide in peer-reviewed science
journals for all to see. It's published by people of all faiths,
including *your* faith. It's out there for anyone to check on, to
test, to verify - and to refute if they can. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with atheism.
For one hundred and fifty years, the Theory of Evolution has withstood
all tests. It's been verified over and over again. It's been tested
repeatedly. There are many ways it could be falsified, but in one
hundred and fifty years, it never has been.
That's a solid scientific theory. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of
Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the fact of
evolution.
It's that simple.
So the evolutionists have made their case - over and over.
Now where is *your* case?
Let's see it. Let's see it here.
I'm waiting for you.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
Don't do it, frank. The moment you blow her out of the water, she'll kill file
you and then public ally accuse you of running away from her.
The Dukester, American-American
Budikka666
dishonestly portraying them as "arguments against evolution".
First of all, the only argument against evolution would be a
scientific one - not what someone said, but what someone demonstrated
scientifically. You will all note that Pastor Frank has no such
science. All he has is these misappropriated quotes. I refuted these
quotes on September 9th, 2007, but Pastor Frank is still dishonestly
posting them here even though he now knows for a fact that he's lying:
http://tinyurl.com/3nub6g
The best way to deal with Creationist Claims is to meet them head on
and take them at face value. In that way we see how readily the fall
apart.
Let's look at Pastor Frank's "quotes" shall we?
Here's the first:
> "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the
> evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have
> abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical
> persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances,
> regretfully."
> - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician
>
> "The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than
> ever before."
> - Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.
This was very easy to look up in the talk.origins quote-mine project:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote64
Wolfgang Smith isn't qualified academically to talk about evolution
and indeed, Smith evidently doesn't even believe that a god created
things. But regardless of what he actually believes, all Pastor frank
has offered here is some guy chanting "No it isn't". I'm sorry, but
without supporting science, this isn't even an argument.
> "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable,
> and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."
> - Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.
David Menton is evidently just a dishonest creationist according to
this link at www.scienceblogs.com on what he has said about the famous
"Lucy" fossil:
http://tinyurl.com/3fq4w9
> "Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled
> upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"
> - George Greenstein
George Greenstein is an astronomer. His view is irrelevant.
> "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have
> begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create
> beings like us."
> - Stephen Hawking
>
> "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically
> designed for us."
> - Stephen Hawking
Theopedia disposes of these supposed Hawking quotes:
http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps
> "I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of
> what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply to complex to have evolved
> randomly. Intelligence was required to produce them."
> - Michael J. Behe
> "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no
> publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty
> journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real,
> complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
> There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."
> - Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box The Free Press, p. 185
Michael Behe was thoroughly discredited at the Dover ID trial:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10am.html#day10am98
> An article in U.S. News & World Report remarks, "So far no theory is
> even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take
> the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially
> explains the propitious universe in this way: 'Well, we got lucky.' "
> - Gregg Easterbrook, "Before the Big Bang," U.S. News & World Report,
> special edition, 2003, 16.
This has nothing to do with evolution, it indulges itself in the
fallacy of the presumption that there is only one universe, and
evolution would still be a fact regardless of how the universe came to
be or how life arose..
> If someone won even two lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the
> results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our
> universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball
> lotteries consecutively. Physicist Paul Davies comments, "The conclusion
> must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood."
> - Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), p169.
Paul Davis is a physicist who evidently doesn't understand natural
selection.
> Donald Page of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study has calculated
> that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life
> is one out of 10124, a number beyond imagination.
> - Dietrick E. Thompsen, "The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point
> Fluctuation?" Science News, August 3, 1985, p73.
Again nothing to do with evolution. Again the baseless assumption of
only one universe.
> "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
> more than 40 years have completely failed."
> - N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist
I can find absolutely no authoritative source whatsoever for this
one. It's clearly passed around unchecked form one creationist to
another, but not a single one of you can attest to where it
originated. LoL!
But again, it's a comment, not science. And furthermore, it's
completely refuted by an evolution experiment which has been going on
a Michigan University:
http://tinyurl.com/5b8mdp
(www.newscientist.com)
> "Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not
> produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve
> as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus,
> by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge
> the very existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of
> biologically important organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical
> evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a
> number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that
> even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would
> have been too small to be meaningful for pre-biotic evolution."
> - Noam Lahav (1999) Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins Oxford
> University Press, 1999, p138-139
Lie! Duke University proves you wrong here:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
> "There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop
> independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in
> known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize
> spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem
> of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the
> surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of
> reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is
> negligible."
> - Orgel, Leslie (1998) "The origin of life -- a review of facts and
> speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp.
> 494-495)
Again this is to do with abiogenesis and not evolution. Just because
scientists do not have all the details nailed down today doesn't mean
they never will be, and even if they did not, evolution is independent
of abiogenesis and is still true regardless of how life arose.
> "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts
> of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could
> have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in
> the highest degree."
> - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties"
Dishonest quote. Darwin immediately went on to state: "Yet reason
tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye
to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
considered real."
> "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove
> that a single species has been changed."
> - Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters
This purported Darwin quote is fiction:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote82
And speciation has indeed been observed both in the lab and in the
wild.
> "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do
> we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature
> in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them,
> well-defined species?"
> - Charles Darwin, in H. Enoch's, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139
H. Enoch Lied about what Darwin said: "Hence, if we look at each
species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and
all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated
by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But,
as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of
the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in
the chapter on "
> "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence
> in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. The success of
> Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
> - W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the
> Species [Canadian scientist].
W. R. Thompson. The sixth edition of "On The Origin..." was published
in 1956, half a century ago. You can read what W. R. Thompson
actually said here:
http://bevets.com/equotest.htm
> "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental
> imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system
> without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence
> [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils
> which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding
> experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
> truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called."
> - David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
David C.C. Watson is a religious writer, not a scientist.
Francis Collins actually accepts evolution!
> "The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the
> biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
> - Niles
Presumably this is Niles Eldredge, who is an evolutionist, and who is
clearly yet again being dishonestly misquoted.
If this is the best you have, it's pathetic.
Budikka
duke
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
>>>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
>>>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
>>>> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
>>>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
>>> Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
>>> creation?
>>
>> The moment you challenge her, she'll kill file you and then public ally accuse
>> you of running away from her.
>
>No one has killfiled YOU, poindexter...
Bud the dud has, along with every other man that dare challenge her public ally.
>Right. Prayer. The idea that their god's plans for them are SO
>unimportant that, if you ASK him nicely, he'll change them.
>Anyone who thinks that ANY god would LISTEN to you fucking
>whiners is an idiot.
We listen to God.
Budikka666
aka Duck Shit, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck & Run) is impotence at its
most raw.
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc
He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk
He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!
He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:18088e06-c000-4e2a...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 24, 11:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Ralph" wrote in
> >> messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> > Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>
> >> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
> >> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
> >> active role in their creation.
> >> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
> >> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from
> >> a Higher Power.
> >> Andrew
>
> > And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
> > evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
> > professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
> > people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
> > side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
> > Budikka
> >\
>
> Wrong!!! Evolution needs the courts to prop it up and impose censorship
> on all discussion of alternative models.
If you could support that claim, it wouldn't be a lie, now, would it?
From this point on you will be required to support your claims or they
will be dismissed outright as lies. Understood?
But everyone knows it's solely the creationists who are forcing these
court cases upon us through their cowardly tactic of using misled
school boards to fight their battles for them. It's not the
evolutionists who are fraudulently trying to bypass the establishment
clause. It's the creationists who are dishonestly demanding equal
time in the science classroom for something which is not equal -
something which has no scientific support.
But you can prove me wrong if you have the evidence, Pastor Frank. So
why not bring your positive science *for* a creation and debate me in
public right here?
I'm waiting.
[dishonest "quotes" flushed where they belong]
Budikka
Pastor Frank
news:85e2bc5f-c283-4ddb...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 3:48 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Syd M." wrote in
>> messagenews:e9566723-c33a-49d2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
>> > > I would go with the one that has 10,000 yrs worth of history.
>>
>> > > The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>>
>> > Typical.
>>
>> Those who choose the macro-evolutionally theory of how man
>> came to be, are the ones who choose FANTASY over reality.
>>
>> FROG BECOMES PRINCE BY A KISS = FAIRY TALE
>> FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX
>
> Your wishful thinking will not make the facts go away.
> PDW
>
You forgot to prove your "fact", that frog becomes man through
evolution. Till then your "facts" are our hoaxes. See below scientist speak
the truth!
Pastor Frank
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable,
and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."
- Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
news:48DEEDCA...@netvigator.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote in message
>> news:hBACk.40171$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > Andrew.. tell me if you would, how god gathered the raw
>> > materials for the creation of the universe..
>>
>> I believe He creates matter from energy. This is my
>> belief. What is your belief as to the origin of matter?
>
> Then 'He' should have been busy doing just that instead of bothering Moses
> up
> on that mountain top where the primitives of the time thought their god
> lived.
>
> You do accept, I trust, that your belief system is, in it's entirety,
> based on
> what was supposed to have happened two thousand years ago ? There is a
> book
> claimed to be devoted to exactly that period.
>
> a son
> on earth who, on dying and coming to life again, it is said - 'floated
> slowly
> skywards to sit alongside Him' where we now fly commercial jet aircraft ?
>
view, but then you are old enough to be in your second childhood, are you
not?
Pastor Frank
> On Sep 26, 4:56 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>> > thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>>
>> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>
> When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
> that's all you'll ever be..
> It's that simple.
> you have snipped uncommented from your replies you pathetic dishonest
> scum.
> Budikka
>
Your evidence is a scam, like the Piltdown man, only smarter and more
devious. You are just flogging your religious beliefs of Scientism in our
pristine Christian NGs.
Pastor Frank
news:6k63lsF...@mid.individual.net...> news:48DDA828...@netvigator.com...>>> news:48DC4190...@netvigator.com...
>>>
>>> > You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible
>>> > fooleries
>>> > of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such
>>> > gratuitous folly. It is
>>> > the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite
>>> > intelligent enough.
>>> > [Aldous Leonard Huxley]
>>>
>>> I don't know about that.
>>> Some dogs and their masters -- it gets awfully close to
>>> worship.
>>
>> My dogs think I am a god; they are wrong too
>
> It's a nice feeling, though .....
>
Sure is!! Especially if that's the only adulation Bob Young gets.
Pastor Frank
> On Sep 24, 9:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> >> "Ralph" wrote in
>> >> messagenews:r3qCk.35561$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >>>
>> >>> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>
>> >> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>> >> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>> >> active role in their creation.
>>
>> >> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>> >> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input
>> >> from a Higher Power.
>>
>> > evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
>> > professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
>> > people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
>> > side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
>> > Budikka
>>
>
> Typical.
>
last 10K years or we would all succumb to fits of apoplectic laughter.
Interesting though, that nature abhors inter-species breeding to create
new species. Also all attempts to create new species by irradiation have
failed. All experimental attempts to date have invariably been unsuccessful,
i.e. like goats breeding with sheep. The odd success, like mules, are 100%
sterile, without a single exception throughout history, ...and to think a
donkey and a horse are not even that far apart as species.
Pastor Frank
> MarkA wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:50:16 -0700, Andrew wrote:
>>> "Ralph" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>>
>>> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>>> active role in their creation.
>>
>> to be a "Higher Intelligence" that had magical powers. As soon as
>> you invoke magical powers, you are, by definition, no longer talking
>> science.
>>
>>> The other model says that the universe and the living things therein
>>> are
>>> the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input from a
>>> Higher Power.
>>>
>
>
"Another dimension" may too difficult a concept to grasp. Simpler might
be to say in another reality, where the word reality means whatever the
person in that reality considers real. I.e. In a dream, the dreamt person
considers himself a real person in a real universe. Anyone telling him there
that he and his entire universe is just a dream, a kind of virtual reality,
an illusion, and that the creator of that dream exists in another reality
probably lying in a bed asleep and snoring, would be instantly dismissed.
However, it would be perfectly feasible, that a dreamt person might
accept the proposition, and now will seek to communicate with the dreamer
through prayer, and supplications in order to assure himself a pleasant
existence. Not only that, but he might very well succeed in getting what he
wants.
Though there can be no evidence for any of this, for all evidence would
also be virtual, but seen from that viewpoint, religion and creationism make
perfect sense. See below the Biblical reference.
Pastor Frank
Acts:17:28: For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.
Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most
secret thoughts.
Pastor Frank
news:gbfq8b$b6g$5...@registered.motzarella.org...
> adman wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 11:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Ralph" wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me Andrew, just what is the ID origins model?
>>>>
>>>> There are basically two origin models. One says that the universe
>>>> and living things are the result of a Higher Intelligence that had an
>>>> active role in their creation.
>>>> are the result of naturalistic factors only, apart from any input
>>>> from a Higher Power.
>>>
>>> And do tell us: which "model" has 150 years of solid scientific
>>> evidence for it - evidence which has been published the world over in
>>> professional science journals, much of which has been contributed by
>>> people who share *your very own* religious beliefs, Andrew? Which
>>> side is it? Be honest now. No more LIES.
>>> Budikka
>>
>> I would go with the one that has 10,000 yrs worth of history.
>> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
>
>
You might as well face it Andrew, little Timmy here has SEEN evolution
occur, 'IMAGINARY' of course, but one can't argue with true-believers and
win, can one?
Pastor Frank
news:48DDA828...@netvigator.com...
> "Alex W." wrote:
>> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>> news:48DC4190...@netvigator.com...
>>
>> > You never see animals going through the absurd and often
>> > horrible fooleries
>> > of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such
>> > gratuitous folly. It is
>> > the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as
>> > yet, quite
>> > intelligent enough.
>> > [Aldous Leonard Huxley]
>>
>> I don't know about that.
>> Some dogs and their masters -- it gets awfully close to
>> worship.
>
> My dogs think I am a god; they are wrong too
>
free food? Of course they probably don't know, that you likely do that to
just fatten them, so you can get a good price for them on the Chinese dog
meat market.
Pastor Frank
> [Elijahovah's unsupported claims flushed where they belong]
>
> Since you put so much faith and stock in this god of yours, you
> presumably have evidence that he, she, or it exists. Please bring
> this *objective* evidence *for* your god right here to this thread and
> let's formally debate it, you and me.
> I'm waiting.
> Budikka
>
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and as long as love exists,
our Christian God exists.
Tim Miller
You listen to imaginary voices in your head, cupcake.
Tim Miller
Yup. So have you.
chibiabos
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
What's a "public ally," Duke? Is that like the road out behind your
trailer?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Michelle Malkin
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:fba6122a-2d03-41e0...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
And, he'll respond to this with a stupid one-liner.
Wombat
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Sorry. I've stopped posting via Googlegroups and am trying to remember how
this other system works.
Wombat
duke
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Are you sweet on me, little queer boy?
duke
>> >> The moment you challenge her, she'll kill file you and then public ally
>> >> accuse
>> >> you of running away from her.
>> >No one has killfiled YOU, poindexter...
>> Bud the dud has, along with every other man that dare challenge her public
>> ally.
>What's a "public ally," Duke? Is that like the road out behind your
>trailer?
No, the one behind your trailer.
duke
wrote:
>What you're seeing here from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke,
>aka Duck Shit, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck & Run) is impotence at its
>most raw.
>
>The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
>5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
>but I've never heard myself think."
And never will, bud the dud.
duke
wrote:
>> In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
>> other than this.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>And, he'll respond to this with a stupid one-liner.
You two need to come out of the closet and admit you are lesbians.
jemcd
>On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:16:39 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
>>> other than this.
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>And, he'll respond to this with a stupid one-liner.
>
>You two need to come out of the closet and admit you are lesbians.
You first
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ec58f8a0-031e-4116...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:56 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >> > On Sep 24, 8:25 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> >> >> The one that says evolution has never been observed.
> >> > Clearly there are no 4 billion year old humans, so Chicken Adman
> >> > thinks he's safe hiding behind this question. He isn't.
>
> >> Good, because there is no 4 billion year old evolution either.
>
> > When you can provide the science to demonstrate that, we'll take you
> > seriously. Until then you're a proven LYING, hypocritical coward and
> > that's all you'll ever be..
> > It's that simple.
> > Meanwhile keep running from all the scientific evidence I posted which
> > you have snipped uncommented from your replies you pathetic dishonest
> > scum.
> > Budikka
>
> Your evidence is a scam,
Prove it or you're a lying piece of trash. It's that simple. Support
your accusations, PF, or have the decency to admit you're a LIAR, a
fraud, a coward, and a hypocrite.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Love? Is that the love with which your god WIPED OUT the entire
planet with an unnecessary flood?
Is that the love which utterly destroyed Sdom & Gomorrah?
Is that the love which caused literally thousands upon thousands of
bloody deaths as recounted in the OT?
Is that the love which would condemn people to an eternity of
suffering if they refuse enslavement you god?
You can shove that "love" up your dumb ass, Moron.
So that's it, huh? For all your blowhard bullshit, Past-It Frank,
that's all you have? A vacuous and empty-headed quote? How pathetic
are you? You seriously think you can overturn ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
solid years of science - much of which was contributed by people who
share YOUR OWN FAITH - and this is all you have: Bible verses?
The Bible wasn't written by any god, Moron. It was written by people;
people like you; people with all of your failings; people with an
agenda; people who have been proven to be liars, cowards, hypocrites
and frauds.
If that's all you have it's worthless.
When you have something to support your juvenile, impotent, asinine
and ultimately worthless claims. I'll take you seriously. Until then
you're a LYING cowardly fraudulent hypocrite.
It's that simple.
Case closed.
Nest please, right this way.
Budikka
Fr...@pastor.it
> Love? Is that the love with which your god WIPED OUT the entire
> planet with an unnecessary flood?
Ask a Rabbi. That is not Jesus.
> Is that the love which utterly destroyed Sdom & Gomorrah?
Ask a Rabbi. That is not Jesus.
> Is that the love which caused literally thousands upon thousands of >
bloody deaths as recounted in the OT?
Ask a Rabbi. That is not Jesus.
> Is that the love which would condemn people to an eternity of
> suffering if they refuse enslavement you god?
Ask a Rabbi. That is not Jesus.
> So that's it, huh? For all your blowhard bullshit, Past-It Frank,
> that's all you have? A vacuous and empty-headed quote? How pathetic
> are you? You seriously think you can overturn ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
> solid years of science - much of which was contributed by people who
> share YOUR OWN FAITH - and this is all you have: Bible verses?
God is Love.
Tim Miller
> God is Love.
Love is real. God is imaginary.
Andrew
> "Pastor Frank" wrote:
>>
>>Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and as long as love exists,
>> our Christian God exists.
>
> Love? Is that the love with which your god WIPED OUT the entire
> planet with an unnecessary flood?
So you acknowledge there was a worldwide flood as we are told
in the book of Genesis...and in the worldwide fossil and geologic
evidence of such a cataclysm.
> Is that the love which utterly destroyed Sdom & Gomorrah?
So you acknowledge that the judgments on these wicked cities,
as we are told in the OT, were real.
Otherwise why would you mention these incidents as arguments
against a Creator if you did not believe they were real events?
Thus showing that your real argument is against WHO God is
rather than THAT He is.
But if you honestly want to know WHO God is, then you need
to look to Jesus Christ who was lifted up on the cross for you.
Although you have rebelled against Him, He will accept you if
you surrender to Him now.
Andrew
duke
>On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:32:49 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:16:39 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
>>>> other than this.
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>And, he'll respond to this with a stupid one-liner.
>>
>>You two need to come out of the closet and admit you are lesbians.
>
>You first
Ok, I'm not a lesbian. But bud the dud and michelle look queer for each other.
Ken
> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>
> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
John Baker
wrote:
Duke couldn't get any pussy if he walked into a women's prison with a
sack full of pardons.
duke
I demand that you report abuse to ken's isp.
duke
Hey, jp, please report jb's insulterous comment to his isp.
jayp...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:39:22 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 7, 8:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>
> >>> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
>
> >>You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
>
> >Duke couldn't get any pussy if he walked into a women's prison with a
> >sack full of pardons.
>
> Hey, jp, please report jb's insulterous comment to his isp.
There's nothing wrong in calling you a virgin queer: it's merely
stating the truth.
jayp...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 8:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>
> >> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
>
> >You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
>
> I demand that you report abuse to ken's isp.
Tell us about the last time you had sex, Duke? Was it during this
millenium?
What is there to report: John Baker is merely stating the truth.
John Baker
Earl also appears to be overlooking the fact that *he's* the troll
here.
SkyEyes
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Ken <flakey...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 7, 8:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>
> >> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
>
> >You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
>
> Duke couldn't get any pussy if he walked into a women's prison with a
> sack full of pardons.
<Mopping iced tea off keyboard> Okay, John, I'm guessing you own
stock in Bilbo's keyboard factory, right?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
John Baker
wrote:
>On Oct 7, 9:39 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Ken <flakey...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 7, 8:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>>
>> >> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
>>
>> >You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
>>
>> Duke couldn't get any pussy if he walked into a women's prison with a
>> sack full of pardons.
>
><Mopping iced tea off keyboard> Okay, John, I'm guessing you own
>stock in Bilbo's keyboard factory, right?
No, but maybe I should. <G>
Douglas Berry
the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Ken <flak...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 7, 8:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I'm not a lesbian.
>>>>
>>>> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
>>>
>>>You couldn't get any pussy even if you were a lesbian
>>
>>
>>Duke couldn't get any pussy if he walked into a women's prison with a
>>sack full of pardons.
>
>Hey, jp, please report jb's insulterous comment to his isp.
What, you're incapable of filing a complaint on your own?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:732f0e78-9418-4d6b...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> >>
> >>Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and as long as love exists,
> >> our Christian God exists.
> >
> > Love? Is that the love with which your god WIPED OUT the entire
> > planet with an unnecessary flood?
>
> So you acknowledge there was a worldwide flood as we are told
> in the book of Genesis...and in the worldwide fossil and geologic
> evidence of such a cataclysm.
So do you acknowledge that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australasia to climb aboard that boat
And before you retort that is has nothing to do with your statement - it as a lot to do with it.
>
>
> > Is that the love which utterly destroyed Sdom & Gomorrah?
>
> So you acknowledge that the judgments on these wicked cities,
> as we are told in the OT, were real.
>
> Otherwise why would you mention these incidents as arguments
> against a Creator if you did not believe they were real events?
>
> Thus showing that your real argument is against WHO God is
> rather than THAT He is.
>
> But if you honestly want to know WHO God is, then you need
> to look to Jesus Christ who was lifted up on the cross for you.
Nice dodge...............
You cant prove 'A;' so you switch to 'B' ....an old worn out tactic.
Trouble is you can't prove either of them
>
>
> Although you have rebelled against Him, He will accept you if
> you surrender to Him now.
What you really mean is, Bill has to surrender to your particular human clique, or club.
If I had to surrender to any religious group it would be to Buddhists, at least Buddha existed, or so it
seems.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
>
>
> Andrew
Yap
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:56:04 -0400, Tim Miller
>
>
>
> <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 23, 6:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:5cdc71f2-afc0-4857...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
> >>>> has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
>
> >>>>> http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm
> >>>> Intelligent design is an origins model; referring to the origin of the universe
> >>>> and the origin of life. Observable data may be compared to any origins
> >>>> model, but no origins model has been tested and ~proven~ experimentally.
> >>> Now let's see, how much positive scientific evidence is there for a
> >>> creation?
>
> >> you of running away from her.
>
> >No one has killfiled YOU, poindexter...
>
> Bud the dud has, along with every other man that dare challenge her public ally.
>
> >unimportant that, if you ASK him nicely, he'll change them.
> >Anyone who thinks that ANY god would LISTEN to you fucking
> >whiners is an idiot.
>
> We listen to God.
Your above statement is fooling yourself, no one else.