Regarding the evolution discussion that I missed: evolution theory
mclark
how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
and that man is just a natural accident.
Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell evolution as
scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
it is also theory? Is this because today's generation of evolutionists
are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of evolution
ideas than the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
with respect to the Scopes Trial?
Also, given some so-called evolution processes presumably take millions
of years to complete, how can evolution be conclusively proved by the
scientific method when it is impossible for evolution processes to be
observed from start to finish? In other words, how can tests that would
take millions of years to perform be *repeatedly* duplicated/proved
using the scientific method? Indeed, so far the "science" of evolution
has been "proved" largely in time lapse drawings. But one problem with
drawings is that they are also known for showing the vast power of our
imaginations!
thank you
M. Clark
David Canzi -- non-mailable address
mclark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
>Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
>the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
>with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
>modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
>stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
>provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
>of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
>LARGELY CONJECTURE;
I want a detail recounting of all events that happened on (and to)
the Andrea Gail after her final radio contact. Failure to provide
this information will be regarded as evidence that the accepted theory
that her crew died at sea is LARGELY CONJECTURE.
--
David Canzi
AC
mclark <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> and that man is just a natural accident.
Could you point to a scientific journal or any primary literature that says
there is no god. It is very simple, on the issue of God, science is
agnostic. Certainly a scientist, even an atheistic one, is allowed to give
his own opinion when not wearing his scientist hat?
>
> Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
And then we begin with the goalposts shifted out so far that no one could
answer them. It is you that is being dishonest. To demand perfect
knowledge is simply a means for you to prop up a long discredited world
view. Science deals with the best evidence at hand.
>
> Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell evolution as
> scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
> it is also theory? Is this because today's generation of evolutionists
> are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of evolution
> ideas than the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
> with respect to the Scopes Trial?
You must be cribbing this from somewhere. Wouldn't it be something if you
even knew what science was. This paragraph indicates that you are likely
entirely ignorant of what a theory means in the context of science.
>
> Also, given some so-called evolution processes presumably take millions
> of years to complete, how can evolution be conclusively proved by the
> scientific method when it is impossible for evolution processes to be
> observed from start to finish? In other words, how can tests that would
> take millions of years to perform be *repeatedly* duplicated/proved
> using the scientific method? Indeed, so far the "science" of evolution
> has been "proved" largely in time lapse drawings. But one problem with
> drawings is that they are also known for showing the vast power of our
> imaginations!
I have a suggestion. Read an actual science book. You don't know what
science is, and yet you feel qualified to make demands of it and even judge
it. Do you do the same to your doctor and your auto mechanic?
>
> thank you
No thank you, for once again repeating the crappola that some folks try to
bury their heads in to deny reality.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
John Harshman
mclark wrote:
> To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> and that man is just a natural accident.
I don't think you are right. What you have described is called theistic
evolution, and the major creationist groups specifically discourage this
option.
> Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
That's a nonsensical standard. It's like requiring a complete
description of the velocity and location of every molecule in the
atmosphere before you are willing to agree that the air pressure is 15
pounds per square inch. The information you request will never be
forthcoming -- at most we can provide a statistical probability for all
the possible alternatives -- but that doesn't prevent common descent
from being a very well supported theory, and evolution from being
science. You can set any standard you want for your personal credulity,
but don't try to force real scientists to follow any such bizarre criteria.
> Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell evolution as
> scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
> it is also theory? Is this because today's generation of evolutionists
> are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of evolution
> ideas than the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
> with respect to the Scopes Trial?
No, it's because the terms "fact" and "theory" don't mean what you think
they mean to scientists. Evolution is both fact and theory, in the same
way that atomic physics is.
> Also, given some so-called evolution processes presumably take millions
> of years to complete, how can evolution be conclusively proved by the
> scientific method when it is impossible for evolution processes to be
> observed from start to finish? In other words, how can tests that would
> take millions of years to perform be *repeatedly* duplicated/proved
> using the scientific method? Indeed, so far the "science" of evolution
> has been "proved" largely in time lapse drawings. But one problem with
> drawings is that they are also known for showing the vast power of our
> imaginations!
You mistake the nature of science. Very little is known "directly"; we
even have trouble defining what "directly" would mean. Everything we
know is an inference from some sort of data. And nothing is "proved"; it
just has greater or lesser support from the data. Further, you don't
have to duplicate an event in order to study it scientifically. All you
have to do is gather evidence about its occurrence. Past events can be
tested over and over again by gathering new evidence independent of
previous evidence. For example, to determine that humans are closely
related to chimps, you could sequence one gene for a number of primates.
As an independent check, you could sequence a different, unlinked gene
from the same set of primates.
You also seriously mistake the nature of the evidence for evolution. It
doesn't consist of drawings, whatever that means. The strongest category
of evidence is the nested hierarchy of life. If you don't know what that
means, ask me.
Matt Silberstein
(mclark) wrote:
>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
>believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
>theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
>as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
>and that man is just a natural accident.
If you can find anything in a peer-reviewed science article or a
science textbook that says there is no God let me know and we can both
object. That said, I will remind you that there has been vigorous
on-going decades long attempts to change science textbooks regarding
evolution. AFAIK they have never claimed that the textbooks say there
is no God.
>Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
>Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms,
As did all life on Earth.
> I want
>the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
>with human DNA.
So do I. Unfortunately we don't have such a thing, we will never have
such a thing, we have no reason to think we could have such a thing.
You are asking for a DNA audit trail from the last 4 billion years.
And since it is not just humans, but all life that has evolved you
really want billions of billion year long audit trails. It is a very
silly idea.
>This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
>modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
>stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates".
Now you want not just the DNA, but a record of how each change
occurred. And since the DNA is not enough to tell you about the
organism we will need breeding colonies for each generation from the
last 4 billion years.
>Failure to
>provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
>of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
>LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
>science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
You can regard it as you like, I doubt I can change that. But I can
show others that your request is silly.
>Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell evolution as
>scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
>it is also theory?
I concede nothing. Evolution is now and always has been both a fact
and a theory. Facts are observations, inferences from observation, and
sets of observations and inferences. Theories are parsimonious
predictive models that explain the facts. There is the fact of
evolution and the theory that explains it.
> Is this because today's generation of evolutionists
>are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of evolution
>ideas than the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
>with respect to the Scopes Trial?
Nope, it is because scientists have a good understanding of what fact
and theory means.
>Also, given some so-called evolution processes presumably take millions
>of years to complete,
Not quite. Life has been around on Earth for some 4 billion years. The
changes that occurred during any period of X years, not particularly
remarkably, took X years to "complete".
>how can evolution be conclusively proved by the
>scientific method when it is impossible for evolution processes to be
>observed from start to finish?
We can't observe the entire history of the Earth from start to finish
so we observe what we can. We look at the record and draw conclusions
from that. Sort of like the orbit of Pluto.
Why don't you know about all of that evidence scientists use? If you
are sufficiently ignorant of the basis of evolution why do you feel
competent to discuss it?
>In other words, how can tests that would
>take millions of years to perform be *repeatedly* duplicated/proved
>using the scientific method? Indeed, so far the "science" of evolution
>has been "proved" largely in time lapse drawings.
Where did you read that? That is not right, that is not even wrong.
Here is a quite quiz for you: there are four independent lines of
evidence that support Common Descent. Can you name those lines of
evidence? If you can't even do that simple basic thing, why are you so
arrogant as to think you can comment on the science of evolution?
>But one problem with
>drawings is that they are also known for showing the vast power of our
>imaginations!
I agree that imagination played a role in your post.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
Dana Tweedy
"mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1gmmi9p.1f07usba6e56oN%idont...@toemail.com...
> To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> and that man is just a natural accident.
Not many "evolutionists" would make that claim. There's no way to determine
if there is nor is not a God scientifically, and no one ever claimed that
humans are "just a natural accident".
>
> Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
I don't think anyone has "run" from that request, as much as pointed out
that it's unreasonable. We don't have the DNA from all organisms that ever
lived. Also, humans are not the end point of evolution, we are just one
twig on the family tree. Why isn't the genetic, molecular,
biogeographical, and fossil evidence we have for evolution sufficient for
you?
>
> Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell evolution as
> scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
> it is also theory?
Oh, dear, another person who's confused about how scientists use the term
'theory'. Evolution is a fact, and it's a theory as well.
> Is this because today's generation of evolutionists
> are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of evolution
> ideas than the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
> with respect to the Scopes Trial?
No, modern scientitsts are just as committed to understanding the fact of
evolution, as they try to understand the theory which explains the fact.
>
> Also, given some so-called evolution processes presumably take millions
> of years to complete, how can evolution be conclusively proved by the
> scientific method when it is impossible for evolution processes to be
> observed from start to finish?
Not all evolution takes millions of years. Nothing in science is
"conclusively proven", but the evidence for evolution is quite strong.
Evolution can be observed both directly, in cases of speciation, and
indirectly through genetic and other evidence.
> In other words, how can tests that would
> take millions of years to perform be *repeatedly* duplicated/proved
> using the scientific method?
You don't need to perform tests that take millions of years. Some tests
only take hours, as in the case of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
> Indeed, so far the "science" of evolution
> has been "proved" largely in time lapse drawings.
Who makes that claim?
> But one problem with
> drawings is that they are also known for showing the vast power of our
> imaginations!
Why not take a look a the genetic evidence, instead of the drawings?
DJT
>
> thank you
>
> M. Clark
>
rossum
(mclark) wrote:
[snip]
>Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
>Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
>the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
>with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
>modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
>stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
>provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
>of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
>LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
>science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
[snip]
>
>thank you
>
>M. Clark
Christians have always run from the following request:
Given that all humanity did descend from Adam and Eve, I want
the genealogical trail that starts with Adam and Eve, passes through
Seth and Noah and ends up with me. This genealogical trail must show
EXACTLY how I am descended from Adam and Eve, at every generation the
names of all of my great^nth grandparents together with the address
where they were living when their child, that was one of my ancestors,
was born. Failure to provide precise information about all my
ancestors at all stages of descent from Adam will be regarded as
evidence that Christianity is LARGELY CONJECTURE; Christian books
should have been place on the science fiction shelves instead of the
theology shelves.
rossum
--
The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth
Earle Jones
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> mclark wrote:
>
> > To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> > how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> > theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> > believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> > theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> > as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> > and that man is just a natural accident.
>
>
> I don't think you are right. What you have described is called theistic
> evolution, and the major creationist groups specifically discourage this
> option.
>
>
> > Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
> >
> > Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> > the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> > with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> > modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> > stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> > provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> > of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> > LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> > science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
*
"I can provide you with an explanation --
I cannot provide an understanding."
--Samuel Johnson
earle
*
Earle Jones
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> >believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> >theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> >as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> >and that man is just a natural accident.
>
> If you can find anything in a peer-reviewed science article or a
> science textbook that says there is no God let me know and we can both
> object. That said, I will remind you that there has been vigorous
> on-going decades long attempts to change science textbooks regarding
> evolution. AFAIK they have never claimed that the textbooks say there
> is no God....
*
The paragraphs above could stand as a textbook reference for a
complete lack of any knowledge of science.
Again: Science says nothing about any "God", one way or the other.
Do you know why?
Because it is the job of science to observe nature, and then to
explain what it observes. So far, no observation has been made that
requires some "God" to explain it. That is not to say that all
observations have been explained yet. Not by a long shot.
That's fairly simple, isn't it? If an explanation stands up to
scrutiny by others, it would be called a 'theory'. Charles Darwin
made certain observation and came up with a proposed explanation.
His explanation, generally referred to as the 'survival of the
fittest', was offered in about 1858. It was immediately attacked by
not only Christian fundamentalists, but also by other well-known
scientists, who refused to believe it. Louis Agassiz (1807 - 1873),
one of the true pioneers in modern geology refused to believe
Darwin. Other famous scientists did not buy into the Theory of
Evolution for years. Of course, religious fundamentalists attacked
the theory (and still do!)
But sooner or later, as more and more observations were made and
explained, the Theory of Evolution became accepted by just about the
entire scientific community -- and for the past 150 years, it has
withstood all of the attacks. And it stands strong today for having
withstood those attacks.
The only attacks we see today are coming from religious sources.
The people who call theselves creationists, whether in the ID
(Intelligent Design) school or not, cannot believe in evolution
because it conflicts with their indoctrinated infallible religious
beliefs.
I hope you understand now why you will never find, in a science
article or textbook, the statement, "There is no God."
The Theory of Evolution is not a 'proof' of anything. It is just
the best explanation for the diversity we observe in life around us.
earle
*
To see how much the intellectual landscape has changed, consider the
words of President Woodrow Wilson in 1922, asked what he thought
about Darwinian evolution. "Of course like every other man of
intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It
surprises me that at this late date such questions should be
raised."
"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone
but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on
reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."
--James D. Watson
Icarus
<snip stuff already addressed well by others>...
> Another thing, why have evolutionists been trying to sell
> evolution as scientific fact in the last several decades but
> are now conceding that it is also theory? Is this because
> today's generation of evolutionists are more honest with
> themselves about the actual integrity of evolution ideas than
> the generation of evolutionists that defended evolution ideas
> with respect to the Scopes Trial?
No, it's to educate people like you and me who aren't directly
involved in evolutionary biology.
Evolution is a fact because we can see beyond any reasonable doubt,
from the wealth of evidence, that living organisms are related by
common descent. Evolution is also a theory because the mechanism
described in the Theory of Evolution (i.e. descent with modification
by means of natural selection) is what was proposed to account for the
fact that living organisms are related by common descent.
In the same way, gravity is a fact because we experience it all the
time, and we have the Theory of Gravity to account for how it acts, by
proposing the existence of gravitons etc.
maf 1029
(mclark) wrote:
>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis
.... have nothing to do with evolution or reality.
Perhaps if you invited Jesus into your spiritual heart, in order to
enlighten your mind, and applied some basic reading skills........
But thank you for your opinion.
Sverker Johansson
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
> >
> >Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> >the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> >with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> >modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> >stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> >provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> >of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> >LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> >science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
> [snip]
> >
> >thank you
> >
> >M. Clark
>
> Christians have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that all humanity did descend from Adam and Eve, I want
> the genealogical trail that starts with Adam and Eve, passes through
> Seth and Noah and ends up with me. This genealogical trail must show
> EXACTLY how I am descended from Adam and Eve, at every generation the
> names of all of my great^nth grandparents together with the address
> where they were living when their child, that was one of my ancestors,
> was born.
Plus, of course, video footage demonstrating that the named grandpa^n
was actually the one to impregnate grandma^n at the right time...
How do we _know_ otherwise that Cain and Abel were actually sired
by Adam, and not by the mailman?
> Failure to provide precise information about all my
> ancestors at all stages of descent from Adam will be regarded as
> evidence that Christianity is LARGELY CONJECTURE; Christian books
> should have been place on the science fiction shelves instead of the
> theology shelves.
Could you please clarify what, exactly, is the difference
between science fiction and theology.
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
-------------------------------------------------
Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
_for_the_pig_ ?
-------------------------------------------------
Greg G
No fair! The task you set for creationism is orders of magnitude
easier than the task he set for evolution.
--
Greg G.
Vertically-striped clothes can make you look thin.
I need more stripes.
Skitter...@yahoo.com
Loki? Troll? Real?
Skitter the Cat
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 2-Nov-2004, rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Christians have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that all humanity did descend from Adam and Eve, I want
> the genealogical trail that starts with Adam and Eve, passes through
> Seth and Noah and ends up with me. This genealogical trail must show
> EXACTLY how I am descended from Adam and Eve, at every generation the
> names of all of my great^nth grandparents together with the address
> where they were living when their child, that was one of my ancestors,
> was born. Failure to provide precise information about all my
> ancestors at all stages of descent from Adam will be regarded as
> evidence that Christianity is LARGELY CONJECTURE; Christian books
> should have been place on the science fiction shelves instead of the
> theology shelves.
Please remember that the terms "Christian", "fundamentalist" and
"creationist" are not synonyms.
A very large number of Christians are quite capable of seeing the
irrationality and inheirent ignorance in what the original demanded.
There are, after all, a couple of billion of us-and not *all* of us are
cowards or kooks.
Good wishes to you
Skitter the Cat
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>theory did not play a part in creation?
For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
two are in direct conflict with each other.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
dandelion
"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth.
False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
(or any other part of cosmology).
> Genesis states the opposite.
The Great Book of Brew states all of it was created on a saterdaynight when
God got thorougly pissed.
> The two are in direct conflict with each other.
Nope. Besides, Genesis is not a reliable source (bronze age gobbledigook!).
Consult The Book of Brew for the REAL story.
Heathen!
David Dalle
> To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> theory did not play a part in creation? The bottom line is that I
> believe that creationists would possibly be receptive to evolution
> theories if it weren't for some evolutionists (read atheists disguised
> as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there is no God
> and that man is just a natural accident.
>
> Evolutionists have always run from the following request:
>
> Given that man did evolve from simple, single celled organisms, I want
> the DNA audit trail that starts with single celled organisms and ends up
> with human DNA. This DNA audit trail must show EXACTLY how DNA is
> modified at every stage of the evolution process, living or extinct
> stages of known animal species hilited as the DNA "mutates". Failure to
> provide precise information about necessary changes to DNA at all stages
> of development will be regarded as evidence that evolution theory is
> LARGELY CONJECTURE; evolution books should have been place on the
> science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
>
Ok, here's my request for YEC's: Given that we are all descendents of
Adam & Eve, wait, I'll be generous, given that we are all descendents
of Noah & his wife, I want an audit trail which starts with Noah, and
ends up with your parents giving birth to you. This family audit
trail must show EXACTLY the full names, places of birth, and
occupations for every generation, including all siblings. Failure to
provide precise information about the necessary family relationship in
all generations from Noah to your parents, will be regarded as
evidence that Genesis is LARGELY CONJECTURE; the bible should be
placed on the fiction shelves instead of the (what? Bible shelf?).
Go ahead.
David
Daniel Harper
Because there was no mailman?
<snip rest>
--
Romani Ite Domum
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Seppo Pietikainen
Easy,
Science fiction *extremely* seldom makes as much money.
HTH.
>
> Best regards, HLK, Physics
> Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
> -------------------------------------------------
> Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
> Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
> _for_the_pig_ ?
> -------------------------------------------------
>
My Very Best Regards.
Seppo P.
Elmer Bataitis
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >theory did not play a part in creation?
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth.
Dave, evolution is about genetics and biology. It's cosmology and astronomy that state that the sun
and earth formed from a gas nebula.
> Genesis states the opposite. The
> two are in direct conflict with each other.
So the answer is to ignore reality eh Dave?
Or is it to call all science a belief system?
AC
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
>>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>>how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>theory did not play a part in creation?
>
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
> two are in direct conflict with each other.
Evolution says nothing about the origin of the solar system. It is a
separate field of inquiry, rather like how automotive mechanics says nothing
about building white picket fences.
Dana Tweedy
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
>>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>>how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>theory did not play a part in creation?
>
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth.
The theory of evolution says nothing about when the Sun originated during
the formation of the solar system. That's astrophysics.
> Genesis states the opposite.
Guess which one has the physical evidence that supports it's claim. Hint,
it's not Genesis.
> The
> two are in direct conflict with each other.
Which means Genesis is not a reliable science text. That doesn't mean that
Genesis is worthless, it must means it's not scientifically accurate.
DJT
John Bode
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>
Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
Once more with feeling:
Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
That's it.
Evolution is *not* a "theory of everything"; it is *not* a religion;
it is *not* a moral guide. The teaching of evolution *does not* lead
to moral decay, increased crime, or psoriasis, any more than teaching
any other scientific theory leads to those things.
So can we *please* drop the bogus arguments?
John Wilkins
> rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote...
...
>
> > Failure to provide precise information about all my
> > ancestors at all stages of descent from Adam will be regarded as
> > evidence that Christianity is LARGELY CONJECTURE; Christian books
> > should have been place on the science fiction shelves instead of the
> > theology shelves.
>
> Could you please clarify what, exactly, is the difference
> between science fiction and theology.
Science fiction plays fast and loose with science. Christian theology
plays fast and loose with scripture.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Earle Jones
john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) wrote:
*
However, it is a known scientific fact that studying evolution will
cause hair to grow in the palm of your hands.
earle
*
Earle Jones
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote:
*
We know the Genesis is not scientifically accurate. Is there some
evidence for the fact that is not worthless?
earle
*
Earle Jones
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>
> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
> two are in direct conflict with each other.
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
*
Pasture Dave:
Greetings! You are once again showing your abysmal ignorance -- but
that is nothing new. The theory of evolution says not a goddam
thing about the sun. Why don't you try reading about it?
Or better yet, sign up for High School Biology 101.
earle
*
"Prepossessed with the opinion that this phantom (God) is an
interesting reality, men, instead of concluding wisely from its
incomprehensibility that they are not bound to regard it;
on the contrary infer that they cannot sufficiently meditate
upon it, that they must contemplate it without ceasing, reason
upon it without end, and never lose sight of it. Their invincible
ignorance in this respect far from discouraging them, irritates
their curiosity; instead of putting them upon guard against their
imagination, this ignorance renders them decisive, dogmatical,
imperious, and even exasperates them against all who oppose
doubts to the reveries which their brains have begotten."
--Baron d'Holbach - Common Sense, 1772
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>
>>
>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>
>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>
>
>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>Once more with feeling:
>
>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
and was originally part of evolutionary study. When it
was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
to distance themselves from it and renamed it. Now
they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "dandelion"
<dand...@meadow.net> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>
>>
>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>
>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>> before the Earth.
>
>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>(or any other part of cosmology).
Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
propose to be able to teach others.
>> Genesis states the opposite.
>
>The Great Book of Brew states all of it was created on a saterdaynight when
>God got thorougly pissed.
>
>> The two are in direct conflict with each other.
>
>Nope. Besides, Genesis is not a reliable source (bronze age gobbledigook!).
>Consult The Book of Brew for the REAL story.
>
>Heathen!
Your anger and obnoxious behaviour only reveal your
immaturity.
Earle Jones
maf 1029 <ma...@notantony.cleosplace> wrote:
*
You're welcome!
earle
*
"Go fuck yourself!"
--Vice President Dick Cheney, August, 2004
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> yodeled:
>In article <5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>
>>
>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>
>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>
>> --
>>
>> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>*
>Pasture Dave:
>
>Greetings! You are once again showing your abysmal ignorance -- but
>that is nothing new. The theory of evolution says not a goddam
>thing about the sun. Why don't you try reading about it?
>
>Or better yet, sign up for High School Biology 101.
Since Cosmic Evolution does, you have just shown that
it is you who shows your "abysmal ignorance".
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
John Wilkins
Cosmic evolution is the evolution of the cosmos since its inception.
Biological evolution, which even the site you cite shows is a different
aspect of cosmic evolution, is the evolution of organisms. If you can't
tell the difference between an organism and a universe, I truly hope you
don't have a driver's license ("Honestly officer, that pedestrian is
just a part of the universe, and I can't be expected to avoid the entire
universe, can I?").
Try reading Chaisson's book, by the way - you'll see that while he says
biological evolution is a special case of cosmic evolution, he nowhere
implies that accepting that biological evolution happens forces one to
think the sun formed by accretion or whatever. You are either
monumentally, pyramid-sized, stupid, or you are dissembling. In case
your vocabulary is limited, that means lying.
In short - the word "evolution" has many meanings.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/9925_defining_evolu
tion_12_30_1899.asp
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>> before the Earth.
>>
>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>
> Wrong. There are six types of evolution.
Wrong. Despite what Kent Hovind says, the formation of the solar system is
not part of the theory of Evolution.
> Cosmic
> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
> propose to be able to teach others.
At least know that Hovind is a liar and a crook. "Cosmic Evolution" has
nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution.
>
>
>>> Genesis states the opposite.
>>
>>The Great Book of Brew states all of it was created on a saterdaynight
>>when
>>God got thorougly pissed.
>>
>>> The two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>
>>Nope. Besides, Genesis is not a reliable source (bronze age
>>gobbledigook!).
>>Consult The Book of Brew for the REAL story.
>>
>>Heathen!
>
> Your anger and obnoxious behaviour only reveal your
> immaturity.
Your lack of ability to separate folly from science reveals how foolish you
are.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>>
>>
>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>
> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
"Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological theory of
evolution. Kent Hovind lied to you.
>
>
>>Once more with feeling:
>>
>>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>
> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
Which is not the same as what Pasteur was testing.
> and was originally part of evolutionary study.
Abiogenesis was never part of evolution, no matter what Kent Hovind says.
> When it
> was disproved (and it was),
No one has ever 'disproven' modern concepts of abiogenesis.
> evolutionists quickly tried
> to distance themselves from it and renamed it.
Your evidence for this claim, is?
> Now
> they don't even want to talk about it,
"evolutionists" are always willing to talk about abiogenesis, as long as one
realizes it's not part of evolution.
> but insist it's
> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> that it can happen
Except for the evidence there is.
> and will say things like, "Well,
> we're here, so that proves it happened.".
Life had to start sometime. Do you deny life exists?
> Ridiculous.
Yes, and your denial gets more ridiculous as time goes on.
DJT
Alan Morgan
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:05:37 +0000 (UTC), while
>wondering if all people love cupcakes, "dandelion"
><dand...@meadow.net> yodeled:
>
>>
>>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>>
>>>
>>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>>
>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>> before the Earth.
>>
>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>
>Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>propose to be able to teach others.
There are many types of evolution. There is the evolution of Rock and Roll,
the evolution of the American family, the evolution of the home computer, the
evolution of the West Coast Offense, and who knows what else.
Remarkably enough, however, the Theory of Evolution as it is commonly understood
makes no claims about grunge vs. post-punk, moms working outside the home, the
Intel architecture, the correct use of the running back, or whether the sun came
before the Earth.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
AC
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:43:23 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
>
>>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>>
>>>
>>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>>
>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>>
>>
>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>
> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
Cosmic evolution is a rather goofy and simplisticly obvious idea. However,
the evolution of the universe isn't terribly similar to biological
evolution. It's amusing to see you try to confuse the debate by swapping
terminology around.
>
>
>>Once more with feeling:
>>
>>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>
> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
No, it did not.
> and was originally part of evolutionary study. When it
> was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
> to distance themselves from it and renamed it. Now
> they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
Do you feel it honest to spread this kind of falsehood. Your god Kent
Hovind is a pitiful liar that even mainstream Creationists won't touch. How
will you explain to your god that you followed a false prophet, a liar, and
a cheat?
Steven J.
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:43:23 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
>
>>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>>
>>>
>>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
>>> >detail
>>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>>
>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>>
>>
>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>
> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>
covers everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of species.
"Evolution" applied to the universe, or the solar system, or the Earth, does
not even mean the same thing as "evolution" applied to living populations.
The former is change of a single thing over time, analogous to "development"
in a living organism (that is, the "evolution" of the solar system is
equivalent to the growth of a human being from single cell to old age, and
not at all like the evolution of life from single cell to complex species,
or even like the evolution of mostly grey peppered moths to mostly black
ones and back). I'm aware that people -- even evolutionists -- sometimes
talk about a "general theory of evolution," but no one's ever developed such
a thing.
The theory of common descent with by gradual modification -- that humans and
other species share common ancestors, and that intermediates between those
ancestors and us once existed -- does not depend on any particular
evolutionary mechanism theory. Common descent could be true even if current
theories of how it happened are wrong. Common descent, and/or the modern
synthesis ("neo-Darwinism," mutation and natural selection) do not depend
on whether life originated by "chemical evolution" or by miraculous creation
of the first single-celled life forms.
Neither common descent nor the modern synthesis depend on on details of
Earth history such as whether the Earth originated before the sun, or vice
versa. For that matter, mainstream theories of the origin of the solar
system do not imply that either common descent or "neoDarwinism" is true
(most "old-earth creationists" like Hugh Ross will tell you this).
Likewise, current theories of how the solar system formed don't depend on
whether or not the universe originated in a Big Bang; they will work equally
well in a steady-state universe, or an ancient universe originated in some
other way. And, of course (well, from your point of view I suppose it isn't
obvious) the evidence for the Big Bang (that the universe expanded from a
very dense, very hot, very small state some 14 billion years ago) supports
that theory of the universe's history even if current theories of solar
system formation are badly flawed.
All these different sorts of "evolution" are separable from each other. All
are studied separately, by different specialists who may not care or know
much about theories about the other sorts of "evolution." Without a special
modifier, "evolution" means "biological evolution" -- common descent and the
mechanisms which produce change in populations over time -- and not any of
the other sorts of "evolution." It has nothing to say one way or the other
about the origin of the solar system.
>
>>Once more with feeling:
>>
>>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>
> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
> and was originally part of evolutionary study. When it
> was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
> to distance themselves from it and renamed it. Now
> they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>
"Abiogenesis" means, strictly speaking, the origin of life from nonliving
("abiotic") matter. The creation of Adam directly from the dust of the
Earth would be an abiogenesis event.
"Spontaneous generation" was accepted for centuries before the theory of
evolution was thought of. It was widely accepted by people who accepted, as
literal fact, the Genesis account of creation. Why should they not have?
If God could arrange for natural processes to produce one living organism
from another, could He not as well provided for them to produce living
organisms directly from nonliving matter? Did God not, in Genesis, command
the waters and land to bring forth various living creatures? The earliest
evolutionists continued to believe in it, but as noted the evolution of life
is a separate subject from its origin.
"Spontaneous generation" is the direct production, from nonliving matter, of
complex, modern species, whether mice from grain kernals and sweaty shirts,
or bacteria from broth. Naturalistic theories of abiogenesis ("chemical
evolution") involves the spontaneous synthesis of simple, self-replicating
molecules and proteins, and their assembly into increasingly more complex
self-replicating systems and cycles. If you insist on the distinction
between creating Adam directly from dust and creating him through billions
of years of chemical and biological evolution, you ought to be able to grasp
the difference between spontaneous formation of protocells, and spontaneous
formation even of bacteria.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "I have more understanding than all my teachers:
> for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
>
> /
> o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \
>
> "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
> the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
-- Steven J.
>
Earle Jones
> immaturity...
*
Not really. It reveals the frustration upon hearing totally
ignorant assholes like you attempting to understand your betters.
You should learn before you teach. You have a long, long way to go.
If I were you, I would drop out of this group -- which has some
people who really do understand biological evolution -- read what
they post -- you might learn something. But, since it would
conflict with your stupid Biblical shit, you won't believe it anyway.
Your Bible is crap -- bronze-age wild-ass guesses written by a mob
of goat herders and translated and amended by several generations of
illiterate priests who had axes to grind. What's left is bullshit.
I learned this when I was about 18. Before that, I believed as you
do. But I no longer speak as a child. I put away childish things.
(Does that sound familiar?)
earle
*
Bob Pease
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:05:37 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "dandelion"
> <dand...@meadow.net> yodeled:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> >> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> >> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
> >>
> >>
> >> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
detail
> >> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >> >theory did not play a part in creation?
> >>
> >> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> >> before the Earth.
> >
> >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
> >(or any other part of cosmology).
>
> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
> propose to be able to teach others.
Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
RJ P
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/17/04
386sx
[...]
>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic Evolution is one of
>> them. At least know what it is you propose to be able to teach others.
>
> Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
... evolution-kabobs, evolution creole, evolution gumbo...
... lemon evolution, coconut evolution, pepper evolution, evolution soup,
evolution stew...
...
--
386
U.O
news:cmcj7j$c...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> "Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9s0jo0hsvkbqor5ua...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:05:37 +0000 (UTC), while
> > wondering if all people love cupcakes, "dandelion"
> > <dand...@meadow.net> yodeled:
> >
> > >
> > >"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> > >> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> > >> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
> detail
> > >> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> > >> >theory did not play a part in creation?
> > >>
> > >> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> > >> before the Earth.
> > >
> > >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our
solar-system
> > >(or any other part of cosmology).
> >
> > Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
> > Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
> > propose to be able to teach others.
>
> Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
>
I'm guessing this is the source:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Which of course is incomplete without this:
http://www.freewebs.com/phineasbg/wyd01.html
Richard Forrest
But if you combine it with religion, you make a fortune - just look at Ron Hubbard.
RF
Sverker Johansson
> Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.hj.se> wrote:
>
> > rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote...
> ...
> >
> > > Failure to provide precise information about all my
> > > ancestors at all stages of descent from Adam will be regarded as
> > > evidence that Christianity is LARGELY CONJECTURE; Christian books
> > > should have been place on the science fiction shelves instead of the
> > > theology shelves.
> >
> > Could you please clarify what, exactly, is the difference
> > between science fiction and theology.
>
> Science fiction plays fast and loose with science. Christian theology
> plays fast and loose with scripture.
So creationism qualifies as both sf and theology.
Or maybe not -- another difference between them is that sf does
not pretend to be anything but fiction.
Best regards,
Sverker Johansson
-----------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------
dandelion
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:05:37 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "dandelion"
> <dand...@meadow.net> yodeled:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> >> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> >> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
> >>
> >>
> >> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
detail
> >> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >> >theory did not play a part in creation?
> >>
> >> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> >> before the Earth.
> >
> >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
> >(or any other part of cosmology).
> Wrong. There are six types of evolution.
Name them and provide references if you want anyone to take you seriously.
And Chick comics do not count.
> Cosmic Evolution is one of them.
Sources please.
> At least know what it is you propose to be able to teach others.
I'm not teaching. There are others in this group who are, but not me. I'm
the One and True Prophet of the BEER, the Buubles and the Holy Foam.
<snip>
> >Nope. Besides, Genesis is not a reliable source (bronze age
gobbledigook!).
> >Consult The Book of Brew for the REAL story.
> >
> >Heathen!
>
> Your anger and obnoxious behaviour only reveal your
> immaturity.
I'm not angry. I'm just telling you how it is. The Book of Brew says the
world was created one wild night at Gods favorite hangout.
Repent! Sinner! Redeem yourself over a glass of Westmalle Triple.
Praise be to the BEER, the Bubbles and the HOLY FOAM!
Halleluja!
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
<redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:9s0jo0hsvkbqor5ua...@4ax.com...
>snipping
>
>>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>>> before the Earth.
>>>
>>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>>
>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution.
>
>Wrong. Despite what Kent Hovind says, the formation of the solar system is
>not part of the theory of Evolution.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
<robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>> >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>> >(or any other part of cosmology).
>>
>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>> propose to be able to teach others.
>
>Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
1) Cosmic Evolution
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
2) Chemical Evolution
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ch/chemical_evolution_1.html
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/stellar.htm
4) Organic Evolution
http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/evolution.html
5) Macro Evolution
6) Micro Evolution
The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
here.
Elmer Bataitis
> From: Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com>
> "Bob Pease"
> <robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>>>> False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>>> (or any other part of cosmology).
>>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>>> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>>> propose to be able to teach others.
>> Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
> 1) Cosmic Evolution
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
>
>
> 2) Chemical Evolution
>
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ch/chemical_evolution_1.html
>
>
> 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>
> http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/stellar.htm
>
>
> 4) Organic Evolution
>
> http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/evolution.html
>
>
> 5) Macro Evolution
>
> 6) Micro Evolution
>
> The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
> here.
Oh wow, Darwin was *a lot* smarter than we thought ;-)
Dana Tweedy
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:05:42 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>
>>
>>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:9s0jo0hsvkbqor5ua...@4ax.com...
>>snipping
>>
>>>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>>>> before the Earth.
>>>>
>>>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our
>>>>solar-system
>>>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>
>>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution.
>>
>>Wrong. Despite what Kent Hovind says, the formation of the solar system
>>is
>>not part of the theory of Evolution.
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
And as the link above shows, the formation of the solar system is not part
of the theory of evolution.
Thanks for the assist.
DJT
Skitter...@yahoo.com
<snip>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "I have more understanding than all my teachers:
> for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
But you don't.
You know, a couple of verses later it says: "Through your precepts I gain
insight; therefore I hate all false ways" and a few verses after that it
says "I hate every hypocrite; your teaching I love."
>
> /
> o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \
>
Nice graphic.
> "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
> the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
I see you've skipped right over the "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth
buckled around your waist" part of the advice given to the Church at
Ephesus. Maybe if you weren't already convinced that you have great
understanding, reading for comprehension might be a bit easier.
And for the record, I still don't think that you have a legitimate claim to
the title of "pastor" and urge you to either 1) demonstrate that I am wrong
[in which case I will apologize] or 2) stop using the title.
Skitter the Cat
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 3-Nov-2004, Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
> > >>detail
> > >>how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> > >>theory did not play a part in creation?
> > >
> > > For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> > > before the Earth.
> >
> > The theory of evolution says nothing about when the Sun originated
> > during
> > the formation of the solar system. That's astrophysics.
> >
> > > Genesis states the opposite.
> >
> > Guess which one has the physical evidence that supports it's claim.
> > Hint,
> > it's not Genesis.
> >
> > > The
> > > two are in direct conflict with each other.
> >
> > Which means Genesis is not a reliable science text. That doesn't mean
> > that
> > Genesis is worthless, it must means it's not scientifically accurate.
>
> *
> We know the Genesis is not scientifically accurate. Is there some
> evidence for the fact that is not worthless?
Well, even without going into the power and value of myth, I personally find
much of the poetry and imagery beautiful. What sort of evidence do you
think might be useful for demonstrating its worth (or lack thereof)?
Skitter the Cat
Seppo Pietikainen
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:37:08 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
> <robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>
>
>
>>>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>
>>>Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>>>Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>>>propose to be able to teach others.
>>
>>Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
>
>
> 1) Cosmic Evolution
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
>
>
> 2) Chemical Evolution
>
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ch/chemical_evolution_1.html
>
>
> 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>
> http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/stellar.htm
>
>
> 4) Organic Evolution
>
> http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/evolution.html
>
>
> 5) Macro Evolution
>
> 6) Micro Evolution
>
> The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
> here.
>
>
So, you're conflating *everything* with the word "Evolution"
into the same concept, but cannot count to more than six.
That figures.
Why did you forget "Evolution of Battle", "Evolution of Society"
"Evolution of Time Measurement", "Evolution of Conservation Movement",
"Evolution of Alphabets", "Evolution of Communication". "Evolution
of Evolvability", "Evolution of Evolution", "Evolution of Internet",
"Evolution of RSS", "Evolution of Cooperation", "Evolution of Modern Letterforms",
"Evolution of Social Software", "Evolution of Unix Time-Share system",
"Evolution of Truth", "Evolution of Programmer", "Evolution of Crop-Plants",
"Evolution of a Home Page", "Evolution of Language", "Evolution of NetBSD",
"Evolution of Haskell Programmer", "Evolution of Primate Intelligence",
"Evolution of Distance Learning", "Evolution of Human Diet", "Evolution of
Rap Music", "Evolution of the Public Web", "Evolution of Useful Things",
"Evolution of Zoroastrianism", "Evolution of Color Vision",
"Evolution of C++", "Evolution of Complexity", "Evolution of the United States Flag",
"Evolution of Singapore", "Evolution of a Darwinian", "Evolution of Writing",
"Evolution of the Eye", "Evolution of the Digital Divide",
"Evolution of Genetics", "Evolution of Bologna Sausage", "Evolution of Prions",
"Evolution of Islamic Terrorism", "Evolution of the Biosphere",
"Evolution of Aircraft Carriers", "Evolution of a Skeptic", "Evolution of Knowledge",
"Evolution of Kiltform", "Evolution of European Dress", "Evolution of Democracy",
"Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future", "Evolution of a Terminator",
"Evolution of Scientific Thought", "Evolution of History",
"Evolution of Rotary Winged Aircraft", "Evolution of the Bogoluibov Renormalization Group",
"Evolution of Opera", "Evolution of a Programmer", "Evolution of Corporate Web Sites",
"Evolution of the Maltese Language", "Evolution of Portable Electronic Books",
"Evolution of cooperative behaviour", "Evolution of Improved Fitness",
"Evolution of Creativity and Culture", "Evolution of Biological Information",
"Evolution of Molecules", "Evolution of Learning Devices",
"Evolution of Western Thinking", "Evolution of Starbursts",
"Evolution of Western Thinking about Nature", "Evolution of the Illustrated Children's Book",
"Evolution of the Modern Computer", "Evolution of the Elements",
"Evolution of Intrusion Detection Systems", "Evolution of sex", "Evolution of supercats",
"Evolution of Karst Aquifers", "Evolution of the United States County Boundaries",
"Evolution of Brand Strategy", "Evolution of malicious agents", "Evolution od Soap",
"Evolution of Education".
Plus a "few" more.
I think you *might* get the drift...
On the other hand, maybe not.
Seppo P.
Seppo Pietikainen
True, but they had to drop the word "fiction" from their pamphlets.
>
>>HTH.
>>
>>
>>>Best regards, HLK, Physics
>>>Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
>>>Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
>>>_for_the_pig_ ?
>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>My Very Best Regards.
>>
>>Seppo P.
>
>
Seppo P.
Richard Forrest
> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
> and was originally part of evolutionary study.
Nonsense, and what is more it has been explained to you why it's
nonsense.
> When it
> was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
> to distance themselves from it and renamed it. Now
> they don't even want to talk about it,
So here is some evidence that scientists *DO* talk about it:
Montmorillonite, Oligonucleotides, RNA and Origin of Life. Ertem
Gozen.
Abstract: Na-montmorillonite prepared from Volclay by the titration
method facilitates the self-condensation of ImpA, the
5-phosphorimidazolide derivative of adenosine. As was shown by AE-HPLC
analysis and selective enzymatic hydrolysis of products, oligo(A)s
formed in this reaction are 10 monomer units long and contain 67%
3,5-phosphodiester bonds (Ferris and Ertem, 1992a). Under the same
reaction conditions, 5-phosphorimidazolide derivatives of cytidine,
uridine and guanosine also undergo self-condensation producing
oligomers containing up to 12–14 monomer units for oligo(C)s to
6 monomer units for oligo(G)s. In oligo(C)s and oligo(U)s,
75–80% of the monomers are linked by 2,5-phosphodiester bonds.
Hexamer and higher oligomers isolated from synthetic oligo(C)s formed
by montmorillonite catalysis, which contain both 3,5- and
2,5-linkages, serve as catalysts for the non-enzymatic template
directed synthesis of oligo(G)s from activated monomer 2-MeImpG,
guanosine 5-phospho-2-methylimidazolide (Ertem and Ferris, 1996).
Pentamer and higher oligomers containing exclusively 2,5-linkages,
which were isolated from the synthetic oligo(C)s, also serve as
templates and produce oligo(G)s with both 2,5- and 3,5-phosphodiester
bonds. Kinetic studies on montmorillonite catalyzed elongation rates
of oligomers using the computer program SIMFIT demonstrated that the
rate constants for the formation of oligo(A)s increased in the order
of 2-mer <3-mer <4-mer ... <7-mer (Kawamura and Ferris, 1994). A
decameric primer, dA(pdA)8pA bound to montmorillonite was elongated to
contain up to 50 monomer units by daily addition of activated monomer
ImpA to the reaction mixture (Ferris, Hill and Orgel, 1996). Analysis
of dimer fractions formed in the montmorillonite catalyzed reaction of
binary and quaternary mixtures of ImpA, ImpC, 2-MeImpG and ImpU
suggested that only a limited number of oligomers could have formed on
the primitive Earth rather than equal amounts of all possible isomers
(Ertem and Ferris, 2000). Formation of phosphodiester bonds between
mononucleotides by montmorillonite catalysis is a fascinating
discovery, and a significant step forward in efforts to find out how
the first RNA-like oligomers might have formed in the course of
chemical evolution. However, as has been pointed out in several
publications, these systems should be regarded as models rather than a
literal representation of prebiotic chemistry (Orgel, 1998; Joyce and
Orgel, 1999; Schwartz, 1999).
from "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere", Dec 2004 v34 i6
p549(22)
Advances in the Prebiotic Synthesis of Nucleic Acids Bases:
Implications for the Origin of Life. Saladino Raffaele; Crestini
Claudia; Costanzo Giovanna; DiMauro Ernesto.
Abstract: Prebiotic chemistry plays a central role in the
investigation of the possible scenarios of the early chemical
environments. Its goal is to shed light on the events involved in the
synthesis of initial biomolecules and on the selforganization
processes that led the last common ancestor. Even though a well
defined scenario for the physicochemical conditions on the primitive
Earth is not available, one can assume that a synthetic pathway, in
order to be considered prebiotic, should use the simplest chemicals
and the most common conditions present at that time. Low molecular
weight molecules such as hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde, easily
formed from the primitive atmosphere by ultraviolet light, heat or
electric discharge as energy sources, have been considered as
prebiotic precursors. Here we focus on the attempts to identify the
prebiotic events originating purine and pirimidine nucleic acids
bases, the necessary components for the assembling of nucleosides,
nucleotides and oligonucleotides.
From "Current Organic Chemistry", Oct 2004 v8 i15 p1425(19)
N-Phosphoryl Amino Acids and Biomolecular Origins. Review Paper in
Honor of the 50th Anniversary of the Publication of ``A Production of
Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions (Miller, 1953).
Cheng C. M.; Liu X. H.; Li Y. M.; Ma Y.; Tan B.; Wan R.; Zhao Y. F..
Abstract: The possible role of phosphoryl amino acids for biomolecular
origins is briefly reviewed. Peptide formation, ester formation, ester
exchange on phosphorus and N to O migration occurred when the
N-phosphoryl amino acid was incubated at room temperature. Short
nucleotides and peptides were formed when nucleoside was reacted with
N-phosphoryl amino acid at room temperature. Serine and threonine
residues in their conjugate with different nucleosides (mediated with
phosphorus) showed different self-cleavage activities. N-phosphoryl
Histine and Ser-His dipeptide could cleave nucleic acids, proteins and
esters in neutral medium. Based on a simple model, a pathway of
`co-evolution of protein and nucleic acid' was proposed.
From "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere", Oct 2004 v34 i5
p455(10)
Phenomenon of Life: Between Equilibrium and Non-Linearity. Galimov E.
M..
Abstract: A model of ordering applicable to biological evolution is
presented. It is shown that a steady state (more precisely approaching
to a steady state) system of irreversible processes, under conditions
of disproportionation of entropy, produces a lower-entropy product,
that is, ordering. The ordering is defined as restricting of degrees
of freedom: freedom of motion, interactions etc. The model differs
from previous ones in that it relates the ordering to processes
running not far from equilibrium, described in the linear field of
non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is shown that a system, which
includes adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to adenosine diphosphate (ADP)
conversion meets the demands of the physical model: it provides energy
maintaining steady state conditions, and hydrolysis of ATP proceeding
with consumption of water can be tightly conjugated with the most
important reactions of synthesis of organic polymers (peptides,
nucleotide chains etc.), which proceed with release of water. For
these and other reasons ATP seems to be a key molecule of prebiotic
evolution. It is argued that the elementary chemical reaction
proceeding under control of an enzyme is not necessarily far from
equilibrium. The experimental evidence supporting this idea, is
presented. It is based on isotope data. Carbon isotope distribution in
biochemical systems reveals regularity, which is inherent to steady
state systems of chemical reactions, proceeding not far from
equilibrium. In living organisms this feature appears at the
statistical level, as many completely irreversible and non-linear
processes occur in organisms. However not-far-from-equilibrium
reactions are inherent to biochemical systems as a matter of
principle. They are reconcilable with biochemical behavior. Extant
organisms are highly evolved entities which, however, show in their
basis the same features, as the simplest chemical systems must have
had been involved in the origin of life. Some consequences following
from the model, which may be significant for understanding the origin
of life and the mechanism of biological evolution, are pointed out.
From "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere", Dec 2004 v34 i6
p599(15)
Kinetics of Organic Transformations under Mild Aqueous Conditions:
Implications for the Origin of Life and its Metabolism. Weber Arthur
L..
Abstract: The rates of thermal transformation of organic molecules
containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen were systematically examined
in order to identify the kinetic constraints that governed
origin-of-life organic chemistry under mild aqueous conditions.
Arrhenius plots of the kinetic data were used to estimate the reaction
of half-lifes at 50 °C. This survey showed that hydrocarbons and
organic substances containing a single oxygenated group were
kinetically the most stable; whereas organic substances containing two
oxygenated groups in which one group was an - or -positioned carbonyl
group were the most reactive. Compounds with an - or -positioned
carbonyl group (aldehyde or ketone) had rates of reaction that were up
to 1024-times faster than rates of similar molecules lacking the
carbonyl group. This survey of organic reactivity, together with
estimates of the molecular containment properties of lipid vesicles
and liquid spherules, indicates that an origins process in a small
domain that used C,H,O-intermediates had to be catalytic and use the
most reactive organic molecules to prevent escape of its reaction
intermediates.
From "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere", Oct 2004 v34 i5
p473(23)
A Possible Route to Prebiotic Vesicle Reproduction. P.L. Luisi; P.S.S.
Rasi; F. Mavelli.
Abstract: Spherical bounded structures such as those formed by
surfactant aggregates (mostly micelles and vesicles), with an inside
that is chemically and physically different from the outside medium,
can be seen as primitive cell models. As such, they are fundamental
structures for the theory of autopoiesis as originally formulated by
Varela and Maturana. In particular, since self-reproduction is a very
important feature of minimal cellular life, the study of
self-reproduction of micelles and vesicles represents a quite
challenging bio-mimetic approach. Our laboratory has put much effort
in recent years into implementing self-reproduction of vesicles as
models for self-reproduction of cellular bounded structures, and this
article is a further contribution in this direction. In particular, we
deal with the so-called matrix effect of vesicles, related to the fact
that when fresh surfactant is added to an aqueous solution containing
preformed vesicles of a very narrow size distribution, the newly
formed vesicles (instead of being polydisperse, as is usually the
case) have dimensions very close to those of the preformed ones. In
practice, this corresponds to a mechanism of reproduction of vesicles
of the same size. In this article, the matrix effect is re-elaborated
in the perspective of the origin of life, and in particular in terms
of the prebiotic mechanisms that might permit the growth and
reproduction of vesicles. The data are analyzed by dynamic light
scattering with a new program that permits the calculation of the
number-weighted size distribution. It is shown that, on adding a
stoichiometric amount of oleate micelles to preformed oleate vesicles
extruded at 50 and 100 nm, the final distribution contains about twice
the initial number of particles, centered around 50 and 100 nm. The
same holds when oleate is added to preformed phospholipid liposomes.
By contrast, when the same amount of oleate is added to an aqueous
solution (as a control experiment), a very broad distribution ranging
between 20 and 1000 nm is obtained. The data can then be seen as a
kind of reproduction of the same size vesicles, and the argument is
advanced that this may correspond to a simple prebiotic mechanism of
vesicle multiplication in prebiotic times, when only physical forces
might be responsible for the basic mechanisms of early protocell
growth and division. Preliminary data also show that repeated addition
of oleate maintains the same basic initial features, and that
surfactants other than oleate also respect the reproductive mode of
the matrix effect.
From "Artificial Life", June 1, 2004 v10 i3 p297(12)
By the way, these are the first few papers my search of my University
Periodicals database produced - there are about 800 similar papers.
> but insist it's
> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>
I think that you will find the arguments offered in the papers I've
referred to above are rather more sophisticated than "Well, we're
here, so that proves it happened." I'd be interested in a citation for
a scientist involved in research into the origins of life comming up
with that particular argument.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "I have more understanding than all my teachers:
Well, you have very little understanding. If your teacher is Kent
Hovind, having more understanding that your teacher is hardly a
demanding criterion.
<more sanctimonious prattle snipped>
So I anticipate your retraction of the following statements, bearing
in mind that I have shown that they are false:
1) When it (spontaneous generation) was disproved (and it was),
evolutionists quickly tried to distance themselves from it and renamed
it (your assertion,by the way). Now they don't even want to talk about
it (abiogenesis)>
I've demonstrated that scientist *DO* want to talk about it. There are
even scientific journals devoted to the study of the origins of life -
titles such as "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere" are a
dead give-away.
2) Scientists involved in the research into the origins of life use
the argument: "Well, we're here, so that proves it happened."
And while we're on the subject, I suggest that you also
3) retract your assertion that the behemoth is a dinosaur.
RF
Bob Pease
Thanks Dave for a cogent and non-judgmental answer.
I have added refs 1,2,and 3. to my bookmark list
they are very good.
If I have a problem with anything here it is the semantics of such a
classification system
Generally, when you say "evolution" it is understood in the sense of #4 as
defined by the course outline supplied as "Evolution of Living Organisms"
More commonly it is understood as some kind of Strawman issue about
sproinging from chimps or "From goo to you by way of the zoo" ravings.
The definition commonly used in TO refers to changes in genotype
distribution in a specified population and associated changes in speciation
and survival.
5. and 6 are concepts not widely used except in Fundamentalist venues.
In any event, I feel that your harshness with a previous poster about being
ignorant of the Field is only partially justified,
Unfortunately words still don't carry the same context to everyone.
As to the "Pastor" nom.
Many folks assume have an agenda by wearing such a Badge that represents the
"Goddidit and Shut up and Pray" school of high comedy.
Actually I get more out of reading your references that entering in such a
debate
Thanks for all the refs
Bob Pease
Aka
Pope Bobby II, Hp.D, M.Div
Dobbs University
A subsidiary of
69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
Reformed Church of the Subgenius
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Bob Pease
"Bob Pease" <robe...@askmeinapost.com> wrote in message
news:cmdjeb$g...@dispatch.concentric.net...
just a followup
I just read a post that points out that this is the same scheme
as used by the hatemonger JacKKK chicKKK.
Guilt by association.
Fuckin' A !!
Bob Pease
John Bode
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:43:23 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>
> >Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> >> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> >>
> >>
> >> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
> >> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
> >> >theory did not play a part in creation?
> >>
> >> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
> >> two are in direct conflict with each other.
> >>
> >
> >stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>
> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>
=sound of forehead thwacking desk repeatedly=
Two different things, Dave. Two *entirely* different things.
The evolution of life on Earth and the evolution of galaxies, stars,
and planets are *NOT* covered by the same theory. They are two
completely different fields of study. When you're talking about the
evolution of life on Earth, you are not implicitly also talking about
the origin of the Earth itself. No, you're not. No, you're *not*.
>
> >Once more with feeling:
> >
> >Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
> >does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
> >Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
> >else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
> >time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
> >all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>
> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
> and was originally part of evolutionary study. When it
> was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
> to distance themselves from it and renamed it.
What Pasteur demonstrated was that mice didn't suddenly spring fully
formed from sacks of grain, that maggots didn't spontaneously form
from rotting meat, and that mold didn't spontaneously form on bread.
What Pasteur did *not* demonstrate was that complex organic molecules
(including self-replicating ones) could not spontaneously form from
simpler compounds.
> Now they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>
Well, abiogenesis *did* happen somehow. At one point, there was no
life on Earth; sometime after that, there was. Whether it was
accomplished by a supernatural being creating life out of sheer will,
or whether it was through naturalistic means, life somehow arose
abiotically.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "I have more understanding than all my teachers:
> for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
>
> /
> o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
> \
Steven J.
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:37:08 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
> <robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>
>
>>> >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our
>>> >solar-system
>>> >(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>
>>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>>> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>>> propose to be able to teach others.
>>
>>Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
>
> 1) Cosmic Evolution
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
>
>
> 2) Chemical Evolution
>
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ch/chemical_evolution_1.html
>
suspect your source (assuming it's the same one used by Jack Chick in his
tract "Big Daddy") uses it to mean the evolution of chemical elements
themselves, which is logically a part of "cosmic evolution." Citing sources
that don't support your claims is bad for your argument.
>
> 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>
> http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/stellar.htm
>
>
> 4) Organic Evolution
>
> http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/evolution.html
>
"macroevolution" and "microevolution" -- changes in the mix of inheritable
characteristics of populations over time. Again, your source uses the term
to mean "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution," which is a use of the term
I've never encountered before, and which seems to be scientifically
illiterate.
>
> 5) Macro Evolution
>
> 6) Micro Evolution
>
> The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
> here.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
>
-- Steven J.
Kermit
Well, science fiction is consistent with the science known at the time
it was written. Hmmm... Since practically no science was known
3300-1900 years ago, maybe it qualifies.
>
> Best regards, HLK, Physics
> Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
> -------------------------------------------------
> Humans breed pigs for a purpose -- making bacon.
> Does that make the pig's life more meaningful
> _for_the_pig_ ?
> -------------------------------------------------
Kermit
Mark Isaak
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:37:08 +0000 (UTC), while
>wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
><robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>
>
>>> >False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>> >(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>
>>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>>> Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>>> propose to be able to teach others.
>>
>>Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
>
>1) Cosmic Evolution
>2) Chemical Evolution
>3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>4) Organic Evolution
>5) Macro Evolution
>6) Micro Evolution
>
>The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
>here.
Likewise, there are six types of set theory.
1) How to place dishes and such for meals
2) How the sun goes down
3) Study of scenery for plays
4) Study of chess pieces
5) Study of tennis games
6) Study of Osiris's evil brother
Oddly, I don't think most mathematics classes cover all these. Does
creationist mathematics include them all?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
John Wilkins
"These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those
which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia
entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages
it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the
emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f)
fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification,
(i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair
brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that
from a long way off look like flies."
[Jorge Luis Borges, "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins",
Translated from the Spanish 'El idioma analítico de John Wilkins' by
Lilia Graciela Vázquez. Online at
<http://www.alamut.com/subj/artiface/language/johnWilkins.html>]
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
No relation
Earle Jones
Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
*
Oh, hell -- it is bound to be worth something. As scrap paper, for
example.
There is much better poetry in Psalms and Song of Solomon, however.
earle
*
Skitter...@yahoo.com
Agreed. My personal favorite book of Biblical poetry is "Job".
Good Wishes
Skitter the Cat
Earle Jones
386sx <mail....@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Don't forget "Evolution Mama"
by the Even Dozen Jug Band
Old Lucian Burn had a gal way down in Tennessee
She told Lucian all about evolution
She was sittin' down on his knee.
Then one fine day, she got gay,
And started steppin' out.
But old brother Lucian started a revolution
The neighbors all could hear him shout.
what did he say?
He said
Evolution mama, evolution mama,
Don't you make a monkey outa me.
He said, Evolution mama,
Don't you think you got me up a tree.
Now I remember the time I had you nice and tame,
You was eatin' right outa my hand,
Some fine day, I'm gonna take good aim
And knock that peanut whistle offa your stand.
Now evolution mama, listen while I get you told
I'm gonna tell you somethin's gonna make your blood run cold
Now I aint half man and I aint half beast
But I can do ya more good than this store bought piece
Evolution mama, don't you make a monkey outa me.
*
earle
*
Bennett Standeven
To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
describe
the shape of the Earth. So who's to say that a round earth is not the
correct description of creation? The bottom line is that I believe
that flat-earthers would possibly be receptive to the round-earther's
theories if it weren't for some round-earthers (read atheists
disguised as scientists) that would have everybody believe that there
is no God and that Earth is just a big rock.
Round-earthers have always run from the following request:
Given that the Earth is round, I want photographs of each square inch
of its surface. These photographs must show EXACTLY how the Earth
"curves" at each point. Failure to provide precise information about
the curvature of the Earth at all points on its surface will be
regarded as evidence that round-earth theory is LARGELY CONJECTURE;
round-earth books should have been place on the
science fiction shelves instead of the science shelves.
Another thing, why have round-earthers been trying to sell gravity as
scientific fact in the last several decades but are now conceding that
it is also theory? Is this because today's generation of
round-earthers
are more honest with themselves about the actual integrity of
round-earth
ideas than the generation of round-earthers that defended round-earth
ideas
with respect to the Mopes Trial?
Also, given the earth is presumably thousands of miles across, how can
a round earth be conclusively proved by the scientific method when it
is impossible
for the whole earth to be observed at once? In other words, how can
tests that would require apparatus thousands of miles in diameter be
*repeatedly* duplicated/proved using the scientific method? Indeed,
so far the "science" of the round earth has been "proved" largely in
scaled-down drawings. But one problem with drawings is that they are
also known for showing the vast power of our imaginations!
thank you
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
<redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:131jo0t0icd97qsbt...@4ax.com...
>snipping
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>>
>> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>
>"Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological theory of
>evolution. Kent Hovind lied to you.
No, you're the one lying. I did not use the term,
"biological evolution".
>>>Once more with feeling:
>>>
>>>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>>>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>>>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>>>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>>>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>>>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>>
>> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
>
>Which is not the same as what Pasteur was testing.
So you claim.
>> and was originally part of evolutionary study.
>
>Abiogenesis was never part of evolution, no matter what Kent Hovind says.
I didn't mention Kent Hovind's name, but the fact that
you keep referring to him, shows that you have no
argument to make. What I said is true.
>> When it
>> was disproved (and it was),
>
>No one has ever 'disproven' modern concepts of abiogenesis.
Please. There is no such thing as any evidence for it.
>> evolutionists quickly tried
>> to distance themselves from it and renamed it.
>
>Your evidence for this claim, is?
History.
>> Now
>> they don't even want to talk about it,
>
>"evolutionists" are always willing to talk about abiogenesis, as long as one
>realizes it's not part of evolution.
>
>> but insist it's
>> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
>> that it can happen
>
>Except for the evidence there is.
>
>
>> and will say things like, "Well,
>> we're here, so that proves it happened.".
>
>Life had to start sometime. Do you deny life exists?
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
>Yes, and your denial gets more ridiculous as time goes on.
And there it is. The "evidence" he claims exists is,
"Life had to start sometime".
Your whole response is moronic.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Steven J."
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:131jo0t0icd97qsbt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:43:23 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
>>
>>>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
>>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not
>>>> >detail
>>>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>>>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>>
>> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>>
>Dave, try to grasp that there is no "general theory of evolution" that
>covers everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of species.
>"Evolution" applied to the universe, or the solar system, or the Earth, does
>not even mean the same thing as "evolution" applied to living populations.
I didn't say anything of the sort.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, AC
<mightym...@hotmail.com> yodeled:
>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:14:39 +0000 (UTC),
>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:43:23 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
>>
>>>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5ooho0989pfc5nn89...@4ax.com>...
>>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), while
>>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis do not detail
>>>> >how God created life on the earth. So who's to say that evolution
>>>> >theory did not play a part in creation?
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>>> before the Earth. Genesis states the opposite. The
>>>> two are in direct conflict with each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
>>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
>>
>> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>
>Cosmic evolution is a rather goofy and simplisticly obvious idea. However,
>the evolution of the universe isn't terribly similar to biological
>evolution. It's amusing to see you try to confuse the debate by swapping
>terminology around.
I didn't switch a thing. I made a true statement,
referring to a comment regarding Genesis.
>>>Once more with feeling:
>>>
>>>Evolution provides an explanation for the history of life on Earth; it
>>>does not provide any explanation for the origin of life, or of the
>>>Earth, or of the solar system, or of the Universe, or of anything
>>>else. Evolution states that populations of living things change over
>>>time; that current species arose from earlier populations; and that
>>>all life on Earth shares common ancestry.
>>
>> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
>
>No, it did not.
Yes, it was.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories
Abiogenesis -- the origination of living organisms from
lifeless matter -- called also "spontaneous
generation." - Miriam Webster Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged.
Spontaneous generation (Biol.), the fancied production
of living organisms without previously existing parents
from inorganic matter, or from decomposing organic
matter, a notion which at one time had many supporters;
abiogenesis. - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
>> and was originally part of evolutionary study. When it
>> was disproved (and it was), evolutionists quickly tried
>> to distance themselves from it and renamed it. Now
>> they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
>> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
>> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
>> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>
>Do you feel it honest to spread this kind of falsehood. Your god Kent
>Hovind is a pitiful liar that even mainstream Creationists won't touch. How
>will you explain to your god that you followed a false prophet, a liar, and
>a cheat?
Attacking Kent, whom I did not mention and me, does not
a scientific argument make.
Bob Pease
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:10:40 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:131jo0t0icd97qsbt...@4ax.com...
> >snipping
> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
> >>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
> >>
> >> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
> >
> >"Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological theory of
> >evolution. Kent Hovind lied to you.
>
> No, you're the one lying. I did not use the term,
> "biological evolution".
>>
snip
> Your whole response is moronic.
>
Why are you ignoring challenges to the credibility /motivations of your
stuff when you model your classification scheme from Hate Literature by
JacKKK ChicKKK???
Earle Jones
Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
*
Interesting that you should pick "Job". I have a very good friend
who is an Episcopal lay minister who said the same thing. I don't
remember much about Job from my childhood -- I'd better go back and
read it again.
BTW, what would be your least favorite book, and for what reasons?
earle
*
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
>>
>>"Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological theory of
>>evolution. Kent Hovind lied to you.
>
> No, you're the one lying. I did not use the term,
> "biological evolution".
Sorry, no. We both know that you are cribbing from Kent Hovind's statements
about 6 kinds of evolution. I didn't say you used the term 'biological
evolution', I am pointing out that the theory of evolution as normally
understood in the context of this NG, means biological evolution. You know
that too.
snip
>>> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
>>
>>Which is not the same as what Pasteur was testing.
>
> So you claim.
Yes, and I can back up my claim. How about you?
>
>
>>> and was originally part of evolutionary study.
>>
>>Abiogenesis was never part of evolution, no matter what Kent Hovind says.
>
> I didn't mention Kent Hovind's name,
You didn't have to. I'm familiar with Hovind's claims, as are you.
> but the fact that
> you keep referring to him, shows that you have no
> argument to make. What I said is true.
That's false, twice. You know that you are repeating Kent Hovind's claims,
and I know it too. We also both know that Hovind is lying. By repeating
Hovind's lies, you are lying too.
>
>
>>> When it
>>> was disproved (and it was),
>>
>>No one has ever 'disproven' modern concepts of abiogenesis.
>
> Please. There is no such thing as any evidence for it.
Are you claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Actually,
there is quite a lot of evidence that abiogenesis is possible. You simply
refuse to see it. From the Miller/Urey experiment to the modern ideas of RNA
world, the evidence is there.
>
>
>>> evolutionists quickly tried
>>> to distance themselves from it and renamed it.
>>
>>Your evidence for this claim, is?
>
> History.
So, you admit you have no evidence to offer, only a vauge reference to
"History". What particular part of "History" do you claim supports your
claim?
snipping
.
>>
>>Life had to start sometime. Do you deny life exists?
>>
>>> Ridiculous.
>>
>>Yes, and your denial gets more ridiculous as time goes on.
>
> And there it is. The "evidence" he claims exists is,
> "Life had to start sometime".
Do you deny life exists? Do you believe it always existed? Either way,
the fact that life exists is not offered as "evidence" of any particular
concept of abiogenesis, but it does show that life did have to start
sometime.
>
> Your whole response is moronic.
Ah, when you cannot answer, you insult. How Christian of you.
DJT
>
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
<redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a5ako0dp8s08mvmkq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:05:42 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
>> <redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9s0jo0hsvkbqor5ua...@4ax.com...
>>>snipping
>>>
>>>>>> For one thing, evolution states that the Sun came
>>>>>> before the Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our
>>>>>solar-system
>>>>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. There are six types of evolution.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Despite what Kent Hovind says, the formation of the solar system
>>>is
>>>not part of the theory of Evolution.
>>
>> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
>
>And as the link above shows, the formation of the solar system is not part
>of the theory of evolution.
>
>Thanks for the assist.
Whatever you say.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Seppo
Pietikainen <s.piet...@kolumbus.fi> yodeled:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:37:08 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
>> <robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>False. Evolution does not make any statements concerning our solar-system
>>>>>(or any other part of cosmology).
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. There are six types of evolution. Cosmic
>>>>Evolution is one of them. At least know what it is you
>>>>propose to be able to teach others.
>>>
>>>Please enlighten us by a citing a reference on the six types of evolution.
>>
>>
>> 1) Cosmic Evolution
>>
>> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/
>>
>>
>> 2) Chemical Evolution
>>
>> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ch/chemical_evolution_1.html
>>
>>
>> 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution
>>
>> http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/stellar.htm
>>
>>
>> 4) Organic Evolution
>>
>> http://faculty.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/evolution.html
>>
>>
>> 5) Macro Evolution
>>
>> 6) Micro Evolution
>>
>> The above two (5 & 6) are already well known by people
>> here.
>>
>>
>
>So, you're conflating *everything* with the word "Evolution"
>into the same concept, but cannot count to more than six.
No, I'm not. The fact is, I was asked for the six
types, I gave them and you are upset about that. These
are six types of evolution that scientists call
evolution. That's why they are called evolution at the
references I gave you. If you don't like that, go
argue with Tufts University, for example.
Pastor Dave
You're welcome.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Mark Isaak
<eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> yodeled:
You just hate it when a creationist proves you don't
know what you're talking about.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<131jo0t0icd97qsbt...@4ax.com>...<snipped>
>
>> Abiogenesis used to be called "spontaneous generation"
>> and was originally part of evolutionary study.
>
>Nonsense, and what is more it has been explained to you why it's
>nonsense.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
Pastor Dave
>> Now they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
>> true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
>> that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
>> we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>>
>
>Well, abiogenesis *did* happen somehow.
That's your evidence?
>At one point, there was no
>life on Earth; sometime after that, there was. Whether it was
>accomplished by a supernatural being creating life out of sheer will,
>or whether it was through naturalistic means, life somehow arose
>abiotically.
Now you're lying to avoid admitting the truth.
Abiogenesis is taught as life from non-living matter
through natural means.
fencingsax
> "Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cc5no01kjd4gfnir7...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:10:40 +0000 (UTC), while
> > wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Dana Tweedy"
> > <redd...@Nospam.com> yodeled:
> >
> > >
> > >"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:131jo0t0icd97qsbt...@4ax.com...
> > >snipping
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Evolution states *NO SUCH THING*, and you know it. Yet it doesn't
> > >>>stop you from repeating this nonsense. Why is that?
> > >>
> > >> Because Cosmic Evolution states exactly that.
> > >
> > >"Cosmic Evolution" has nothing to do with the biological theory of
> > >evolution. Kent Hovind lied to you.
> >
> > No, you're the one lying. I did not use the term,
> > "biological evolution".
> >>
>
Neither did he. So I guess you're both right. Have a cookie!
> snip
> > Your whole response is moronic.
> >
>
> Why are you ignoring challenges to the credibility /motivations of your
> stuff when you model your classification scheme from Hate Literature by
> JacKKK ChicKKK???
>
> Bob Pease
>
O come one now that is just insulting. I'm sure some bigots at least
accept SOME science.
Roger Pearse
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis
>
Curious. How about this?
maf 1029 <ma...@notantony.cleosplace> wrote in message news:<d0tvn0h7r69drpfft...@4ax.com>...
> "Tacitus, himself, in his own words, admits that his re-recounting of
> the alleged event is 3rd-hand."
Since you say this, produce the text that says so. Or, you can
apologise for telling a lie; or, you can whine, scream, lie, post
Latin you can't read and foam at the mouth, and otherwise try to
wriggle out of it.
Give us something to laugh at, little doggie -- an atheist on a stick
of his own making, wriggling.
> Perhaps if you invited Jesus into your spiritual heart, in order to
> enlighten your mind, and applied some basic reading skills........
Tell me, did you mother bring you up dishonest, or did you learn it on
your own?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Seppo Pietikainen
Yep, you were asked for a reference of the six types of
evolution. I don't think it is necessary for me to take
up anything with the Tufts University if you cannot read
and *still* conflate different concepts into one.
Seppo P.
Richard Forrest
So are you asserting that Pasteur's experiments, which showed that
maggots, mice and so on are not created spontaneously in rotting meat
prove that life cannot originate from the chemical interactions of
molecules?
Furthermore, can you explain to me in what way the study of how life
originates is part of the study of how living things reproduce and
interact? Evolution can only occur once life is established.
Fudging definintions, evading the issue and so on merely make you look
dishonest.
Do you still assert that the behemoth was a dinosaur, by the way?
RF
Skitter...@yahoo.com
Oh, I don't think he has all that much cause for anger, 'Dave
BTW: can you explain why, if there are six types of evolution (which you
asserted earlier) why, say "evolution of set theory" can not be substituted
for any of the six "types of evolution" you listed-or why it can't be just
added to the list-making it "seven types of evolution"?
Skitter the Cat
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 5-Nov-2004, Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > We know the Genesis is not scientifically accurate. Is there some
> > > > > evidence for the fact that is not worthless?
> > > >
> > > > Well, even without going into the power and value of myth, I
> > > > personally
> > > > find
> > > > much of the poetry and imagery beautiful. What sort of evidence do
> > > > you
> > > > think might be useful for demonstrating its worth (or lack thereof)?
> > > >
> > > > Skitter the Cat
> > >
> > > *
> > > Oh, hell -- it is bound to be worth something. As scrap paper, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > There is much better poetry in Psalms and Song of Solomon, however
> >
> > Agreed. My personal favorite book of Biblical poetry is "Job".
> >
> > Good Wishes
> >
> > Skitter the Cat
>
> *
> Interesting that you should pick "Job". I have a very good friend
> who is an Episcopal lay minister who said the same thing. I don't
> remember much about Job from my childhood -- I'd better go back and
> read it again.
>
> BTW, what would be your least favorite book, and for what reasons?
My least favorite (off the top of my head) is Leviticus. I find the much of
the law and social structure of the Old Testament ranges into the bizarre
and repulsive. I can, and do, evaluate them in a objective manner and in
cultural context in my attempts to understand them (about 20 years as an
anthropological archeologist certainly helps) but when I try to image
actually having much of that for my own cultural norms-blaggh!
Why any human being living in the modern world want a return to the cultural
norms of a patriarchal, slave using, low-tech theocracy is beyond my
comprehension.
An excellent rendering of Job is Raymond P. Scheindlin's "The Book of Job"
(W.W. Norton and Company, 1998). He works hard at preserving and
illuminating the original poetical sense of the work. I don't know enough
to judge his scholarship, but the end result is beautiful. Also, I think
one of the greatest plays I've ever read is "J.B." by Archibald MacLeish.
The first time I read Job, I hated it. It was very hard for me to admit
that I am incapable of grasping or understanding the vastness and wonder of
the universe. The small understanding I do have is enough to fill me with
awe. It was a lesson I needed to learn-and it spurs in my a desire to
understand all that I can.
Skitter the Cat
Skitter...@yahoo.com
<snip>
> Fudging definintions, evading the issue and so on merely make you look
> dishonest.
I disagree. Fudging definitions and evading issues, etc. do not merely make
'Dave look dishonest. It shows that he is dishonest.
Skitter the Cat
Pastor Dave
You now accuse me of fudging definitions. The fact is,
you can't stand it that I supported my statement. The
references are there. If you don't believe that, then
go look them up and when you find that I stated it
accurately, you can go argue with them, since I did not
have anything to do with those books.
catshark
I think we should consider the alternative explanation of extreme stupidity
. . . should he wish to plead it.
>
>Skitter the Cat
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The deity described by Creationism is, at a fundamental level,
not the God that sent his Son into the world for the redemption
of sin. It is some mad, fallible, ignorant play-tester squeezed
into the shrinking gaps of human ignorance . . .
- Skitter the Cat -
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
And yet, I did neither and supported my statement with
quotes and the references. But we both know you don't
care about that.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, catshark
<cats...@yahoo.com> yodeled:
>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On 6-Nov-2004, ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Fudging definintions, evading the issue and so on merely make you look
>>> dishonest.
>>
>>I disagree. Fudging definitions and evading issues, etc. do not merely make
>>'Dave look dishonest. It shows that he is dishonest.
>
>I think we should consider the alternative explanation of extreme stupidity
>. . . should he wish to plead it.
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that quoting factual
information with references was actually extreme
stupidity and has nowhere near the validity of snipping
it and pretending it didn't happen and then attacking
the person.
catshark
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 15:54:00 +0000 (UTC), while
>wondering if all people love cupcakes, catshark
><cats...@yahoo.com> yodeled:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 6-Nov-2004, ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Fudging definintions, evading the issue and so on merely make you look
>>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>>I disagree. Fudging definitions and evading issues, etc. do not merely make
>>>'Dave look dishonest. It shows that he is dishonest.
>>
>>I think we should consider the alternative explanation of extreme stupidity
>>. . . should he wish to plead it.
>
>Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that quoting factual
>information with references
Ah, so you think quoting *dictionaries* are references to the actual
content of scientific theories rather than just the way words are
*popularly* used by some people?
>was actually extreme
>stupidity
It is when you confidently assert something you obviously don't know
anything about.
>and has nowhere near the validity of snipping
>it
Not done by me. Though, as noted above, not relevant either, since they
were not proper references for what you are arguing.
>and pretending it didn't happen and then attacking
>the person.
Hey, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
If you want to demonstrate that you aren't an idiot or, worse, a deliberate
liar, explain *in detail* how "spontaneous generation*, as historically
addressed by Pasteur, Redi and Spallanzani, is remotely the same concept as
"abiogenesis" as presently proposed by biochemistry.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Those who reject biological evolution do so, usually,
not out of reason, but out of unjustified vanity.
- Isaac Asimov -
maf 1029
(Roger Pearse) wrote:
>maf 1029 <ma...@notantony.cleosplace> wrote in message news:<4jrgo0t7pb0qgunpc...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
>> (mclark) wrote:
>>
>> >To begin with, note that the first few chapters of Genesis
>>
>> .... have nothing to do with evolution or reality.
>
>Curious. How about this?
>
>maf 1029 <ma...@notantony.cleosplace> wrote in message news:<d0tvn0h7r69drpfft...@4ax.com>...
>> "Tacitus, himself, in his own words, admits that his re-recounting of
>> the alleged event is 3rd-hand."
>
>Since you say this, produce the text that says so.
I have, Roger, at least seven times now.
1ttko09nf38l67mrk...@4ax.com
dl8io097engubm932...@4ax.com
3a88eeea.04110...@posting.google.com
3a88eeea.04110...@posting.google.com
noq8o0tkn08oef525...@4ax.com
KL6hd.48368$OD2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
5fnao0h84k57ntq8n...@4ax.com
Now, you can apologise {sic} for telling a lie, or you can whine,
scream, lie, ignore Latin you can't read, foam at the mouth, and
otherwise try to wriggle out of it.
{NB: Roger's sloppy and egregious punctuation and grammar fixed during
editing for accuracy}
Give us something to laugh at, Rog -- a sniveling Christer on a stick
of his own making, wriggling. That must hurt, too.
Now stay true to form and whine about the abuse which you wrote.
Mark Isaak
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>[stuff about spontaneous generation]
Dave,
How does spontaneous generation differ from creation? Both are
defined as life suddenly coming from non-life. If spontaneous
generation has been discredited, that means creationism has been
discredited.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Mark Isaak
<eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> yodeled:
>On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:46:50 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>[stuff about spontaneous generation]
>
>Dave,
>
>How does spontaneous generation differ from creation? Both are
>defined as life suddenly coming from non-life. If spontaneous
>generation has been discredited, that means creationism has been
>discredited.
Now you are acting like a moron. We both know that
spontaneous generation starts with the word,
"spontaneous" and not "directed". It is about a
naturalistic approach to life from non-living matter.
What you call evolution and abiogenesis, used to be
called, "natural philosophy".
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Richard Forrest
So let's get this clear: are you asserting that Pasteur's experiments,
which showed that maggots, mice and so on are not created
spontaneously in rotting meat prove that life cannot originate from
the chemical interactions of molecules?
Seems a simple question to me.
If the answer is no, you are fudging definitions.
I leave you to work out what it means if the answer is yes.
RF
PS. You still have not answered my other question. Do you still assert
that the behomoth is a dinosaur?
AC
No need. The word "evolution" has different meanings in different contexts.
Stellar evolution is not the same process as biological evolution. Surely
you are not so unaware of the notion in language of a single word being used
in different ways, are you?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
AC
You didn't prove anything. You've shown that there are multiple usages of
the word "evolution" in science, something obvious to anyone with about a
grade six education, which is, at the moment, about all I'm going to give
you.
If this is the weight of your argument, Pastor, I recommend you do something
worthwhile, like wash your socks or read a book.
AC
So, do you like your browser cookies with milk, Pastor?
AC
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:04:23 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
>
>
>
>>>Now they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
>>>true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
>>>that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
>>>we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>Well, abiogenesis *did* happen somehow.
>
>
> That's your evidence?
We are here.
>
>
>
>>At one point, there was no
>>life on Earth; sometime after that, there was. Whether it was
>>accomplished by a supernatural being creating life out of sheer will,
>>or whether it was through naturalistic means, life somehow arose
>>abiotically.
>
>
> Now you're lying to avoid admitting the truth.
> Abiogenesis is taught as life from non-living matter
> through natural means.
At least it's testable. I'm sure I've asked you this before, but can
you provide a means whereby I could falsify your claim that God did it?
Pastor Dave
If you have a problem with the definitions, then take
it up with those who produced the books I referenced.
Bob Pease
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2v7e42F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Pastor Dave wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:04:23 +0000 (UTC), while
> > wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> > john...@my-deja.com (John Bode) yodeled:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Now they don't even want to talk about it, but insist it's
> >>>true, in spite of the fact that they have zero evidence
> >>>that it can happen and will say things like, "Well,
> >>>we're here, so that proves it happened.". Ridiculous.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well, abiogenesis *did* happen somehow.
> >
> >
> > That's your evidence?
>
> We are here.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>At one point, there was no
> >>life on Earth; sometime after that, there was. Whether it was
> >>accomplished by a supernatural being creating life out of sheer will,
> >>or whether it was through naturalistic means, life somehow arose
> >>abiotically.
> >
> >
> > Now you're lying to avoid admitting the truth.
> > Abiogenesis is taught as life from non-living matter
> > through natural means.
>
> At least it's testable. I'm sure I've asked you this before, but can
> you provide a means whereby I could falsify your claim that God did it?
>
>
Sorry, that statement does not compute in Daveland!!
RJ Pease
AC
You referenced dictionaries. Dictionaries are not authorities on scientific
theories, but it is frequent for those attempting to win a debate by
liberally equating precise terminology with more loose terminology
frequently use such books. It's not a new tactic, nor is it a particularly
impressive one. Your not dealing with children or adults unaquainted with
science. You can't spin your line here and expect anyone to turn to your
side. Rather, you simply prove that your position is so weak that you have
to grab at the cheapest tactic left to you.