Twenty Questions For Evolutionists --- Walt Brown
curtjester1
Twenty Questions for Evolutionists
To answer a question satisfactorily, one must first understand facts
related to that question. When you click on the page numbers following
each question, you will be taken to a brief section within the online
book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood. There you will see why knowledgeable evolutionists have great
difficulty answering these questions. If you find evolutionists who
feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more
question: "Why won't evolutionists enter a strictly scientific,
written debate on the creation-evolution issue?"; After you read the
entire book, the answer will be evident. For details on this written
debate offer, see pages 399-401.
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What's
the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
(See pages 6-8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how
could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a
vital organ, the organism is dead--by definition.) If a reptile's leg
evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before
it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.)
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How
could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird
ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How
could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all
components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page
19.)
3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional
fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable
transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and
where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary
ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.)
5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle
than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell
reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the
atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you
make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into
existence at about the same time. (See page 14.)
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates
information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in
DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books' worth of
coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion
cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant
galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent
source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA
molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See
pages 9 and 15.)
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only
be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.) How could
immune systems evolve? (See page 19.)
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take
vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that
hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--
any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't
students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the
evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? What about the almost 200
other moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)
12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics
come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.)
13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28-30.)
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and
contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of
years old? (See pages 34-37 and 314-319.)
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are
hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are
billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used
to rule out contamination. (See page 33.)
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that
the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31-37.)
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page
45.)
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam?
Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female
ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only
about 6,000-7,000 years ago. (See pages 311-313.)
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites:
living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-
like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn't this implicate
Earth as their source--and a powerful launcher, the fountains of the
great deep? (See page 295.)
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features
of the earth:
The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons (See pages 175-204.)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches (See pages 137-159.)
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths (See pages 219 -251.)
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (See pages 161-172.)
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone (See pages 211-217.)
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (See pages 253-284.)
Asteroids and Meteoroids (See pages 285-303.)
In a broad overview, pages 101-132 explain some obvious problems with
evolutionists' explanations for each of these 24 features and show how
all are consequences of a global flood. (Additional page numbers above
refer to chapters devoted entirely to a single feature.)
CJ
curtjester1
Center For Scientific Creation
If you want to click onto the pages and numbers referenced in the
twenty questions, one can do so by going to the site where the Article
of the Twenty Questions For Evolutionists came from:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike's --- ?'s evolutionists can't answer
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/QuestionsEvolutionistscantanswer.html
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chuck Sproull's ?'s evolutionists can't answer.
http://www.ceai.org/fnewsletter/nl06/nl_feb06/questions_evolution.doc
CJ
Ips-Switch
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:822cc272-056e-47c6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Creationism is NOT science. It's superstition and baseless beliefs. That's
why it's not taught in schools. There is zero evidence for a magical
"creation."
Ips-Switch
>
>
> Twenty Questions for Evolutionists
>
> To answer a question satisfactorily, one must first understand facts
> related to that question. When you click on the page numbers following
> each question, you will be taken to a brief section within the online
> book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
> Flood.
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood and Ark that carried hundreds of
t thousands of animals, birds, etc.
There you will see why knowledgeable evolutionists have great
> difficulty answering these questions. If you find evolutionists who
> feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more
> question: "Why won't evolutionists enter a strictly scientific,
> written debate on the creation-evolution issue?"; After you read the
> entire book, the answer will be evident. For details on this written
> debate offer, see pages 399-401.
They already have but since you were home schooled by an ignorant fundy you
have no knowledge of such things. You're too stupid to use a search engine
or ask on talk.origins.
Fundy nonsence snipped.
Ips-Switch
>
> http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/QuestionsEvolutionistscantanswer.html
Are you living in the 1700s? All these questions have been answered many
times over. You're ignorance is astounding. Do you ever read anything but
fundy nonsense sites?
Ips-Switch
> http://www.ceai.org/fnewsletter/nl06/nl_feb06/questions_evolution.doc
I saw no answers there as to how a small handful of people fed and keep
clean hundreds of thousands of animals on the Ark for a year. Where they
stored all the food and special diets for them and where they stored all the
fresh water they'd need. How did they remove the millions of gallons of
urine and millions of tons of feces? Not to mention the monster aquariums
needed to keep the fresh water fish alive for that year. How did they
refrigerate the fresh meat needed for the carnivores? Or keep the fruit
fresh for the fruit eaters? Or how Noah managed to get all the animals from
all around the earth to the Ark. Did he ship them by steamer or by Cargo
plane? You're a nutcase..........
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
But why let something be taught in schools that's psuedo science
according to creationists. Why can't they have equal time poking
holes in a theory that is extremely laughable at times. No fossils,
no explaining the sudden complex organs and how they ever
intertwined. Just mindless speculation from people bent on disproving
that there could be a Creator.
Of course evolutionists who pooh pooh won't say why they believe that
is so. They could give a little short discourse that could be
poignant (if it were the truth), but no...it's go to the classroom
where they want to disprove God, and prove something on their own.
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
See, you look for something you like but don't answer what you don't.
Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it. The Ark
supposedly has had many visitors sitting on Mt. Ararat via
expeditions. The raising to the status of mountains from hills and
the moving of the continents would be an viable explanation with an
increase of water. Changes can occur within the 'kinds' the Bible
talks about so a variety of animals could be easily increased and
transported after the Flood subsided.
CJ
Ips-Switch
> On 11 Dec, 13:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eab71002-e637-47c9...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.ceai.org/fnewsletter/nl06/nl_feb06/questions_evolution.doc
>>
>> I saw no answers there as to how a small handful of people fed and keep
>> clean hundreds of thousands of animals on the Ark for a year. Where they
>> stored all the food and special diets for them and where they stored all
>> the
>> fresh water they'd need. How did they remove the millions of gallons of
>> urine and millions of tons of feces? Not to mention the monster
>> aquariums
>> needed to keep the fresh water fish alive for that year. How did they
>> refrigerate the fresh meat needed for the carnivores? Or keep the fruit
>> fresh for the fruit eaters? Or how Noah managed to get all the animals
>> from
>> all around the earth to the Ark. Did he ship them by steamer or by Cargo
>> plane? You're a nutcase..........
>
> See, you look for something you like but don't answer what you don't.
Stop avoiding the issues. Your stupid creationist websites ignore the
questions non-creationists ask.
> Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
All Jesus knew was what he was told or read. There is no evidence anywhere
on earth of worldwide flood.
The Ark
> supposedly has had many visitors sitting on Mt. Ararat via
> expeditions.
That Ark was never proved to even be a boat of some kind. It's also much to
small to hold more than a handful of animals. How can you be so ignorant?
The raising to the status of mountains from hills and
> the moving of the continents would be an viable explanation with an
> increase of water.
No it wouldn't because the Mts. are millions of years old. Besides dimwit,
the bible mentioned mountains at the time the mythical flood was supposed to
have happened. Didn't you read the bible?
> Changes can occur within the 'kinds'
Changes? Now you're talking about evolution which you just claimed never
happened. Make up your mind.
the Bible
> talks about so a variety of animals could be easily increased and
> transported after the Flood subsided.
Evolution doesn't happen that fast. Transported all over the earth from
Ararat? How? UPS? Federal Express? You're reaching for answers when you
have none! You totally ignored how a handful of people removed millions of
tons and gallons of waste from hundreds of thousands of living
creatures........
>
> CJ
Ips-Switch
> On 11 Dec, 13:31, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:822cc272-056e-47c6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Creationism is NOT science. It's superstition and baseless beliefs.
>> That's
>> why it's not taught in schools. There is zero evidence for a magical
>> "creation."
>>
>>
>>
>> > If you want to click onto the pages and numbers referenced in the
>> > twenty questions, one can do so by going to the site where the Article
>> > of the Twenty Questions For Evolutionists came from:
>>
>> >http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
>>
>> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But why let something be taught in schools that's psuedo science
> according to creationists.
Because Creationists are not scientists or biologists or cosmologists or
zoologists. They're church men with no more education in the sciences than
you are. We cannot teach myths and fables and superstitions in our schools
and call it science.
Why can't they have equal time poking
> holes in a theory that is extremely laughable at times. No fossils,
What do you call dinosaur bones millions of years old? What do you call
the skeleton of Lucy?
> no explaining the sudden complex organs and how they ever
> intertwined. Just mindless speculation from people bent on disproving
> that there could be a Creator.
Why do you make such claims when this information has been known for years?
Why haven't you done research online and educate yourself?
> Of course evolutionists who pooh pooh won't say why they believe that
> is so.
Because there is evidence for evolution and none for a mythical magical
creation by a sky pixie or space alien.
They could give a little short discourse that could be
> poignant (if it were the truth),
What would they say? They'd have to explain all the thousands of creation
myths, not just your creation myth. They'd have to tell the children there
is no evidence for any of the creation myths.... so why bother?
but no...it's go to the classroom
> where they want to disprove God, and prove something on their own.
That's bullcrap. They never mention the Gods/Goddesses/demons/wicked ghosts
etc. in the schools as you would know had you gone to a normal school. None
of the 10,000 known gods and goddesses are discussed.
>
> CJ
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> Twenty Questions for Evolutionists
>
> To answer a question satisfactorily, one must first understand facts
> related to that question. When you click on the page numbers following
> each question, you will be taken to a brief section within the online
> book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
> Flood. There you will see why knowledgeable evolutionists have great
> difficulty answering these questions. If you find evolutionists who
> feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more
> question: "Why won't evolutionists enter a strictly scientific,
> written debate on the creation-evolution issue?";
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
> After you read the entire book, the answer will be evident. For details
> on this written debate offer, see pages 399-401.
>
> 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.)
Answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
> What's the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?
> (See pages 6-8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how
> could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a
> vital organ, the organism is dead--by definition.) If a reptile's leg
> evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before
> it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
> 2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How
> could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird
> ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How
> could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all
> components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page
> 19.)
Ibid.
> 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional
> fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable
> transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
> living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
> 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and
> where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary
> ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
> 5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle
> than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell
> reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the
> atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you
> make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into
> existence at about the same time. (See page 14.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
> 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates
> information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in
> DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books' worth of
> coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion
> cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant
> galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent
> source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA
> molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See
> pages 9 and 15.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
> 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only
> be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
> 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
> How could immune systems evolve? (See page 19.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
> 9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take
> vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that
> hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
> 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
> 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--
> any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't
> students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the
> evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? What about the almost 200
> other moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-22.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html
> 12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics
> come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
> 13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28-30.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH370.html
> 14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and
> contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of
> years old? (See pages 34-37 and 314-319.)
I am aware of the claims of ignorant creationists who think they have
outsmarted scientists but in reality have just displayed their own
ignorance.
> 15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are
> hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are
> billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used
> to rule out contamination. (See page 33.)
One possibility is that the bacteria had been reproducing inside the
rocks for all those years. Another is that the bacteria had invaded
the rocks more recently. Nothing says that these bacteria were in
the rocks and meteors from the very first day they were made.
> 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that
> the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31-37.)
No, because they don't.
> 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page
> 45.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html
> 18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam?
> Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female
> ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only
> about 6,000-7,000 years ago. (See pages 311-313.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
> 19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites:
> living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-
> like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn't this implicate
> Earth as their source--and a powerful launcher, the fountains of the
> great deep? (See page 295.)
I have no idea what this incoherent sentence is supposed to imply.
Perhaps the author was drunk when he wrote it.
All of these have been explained by science, and none of them pose
any sort of problem to evolution.
> In a broad overview, pages 101-132 explain some obvious problems with
> evolutionists' explanations for each of these 24 features and show how
> all are consequences of a global flood. (Additional page numbers above
> refer to chapters devoted entirely to a single feature.)
Only in a creationist's fantasies.
Damn, that was easy! You should have made the questions a lot harder.
--
Bushism 7-11:
"Our priorities is our faith."
--Greensboro, North Carolina; October 10, 2000
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52e55f4e-b076-4b07...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 11 Dec, 13:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:eab71002-e637-47c9...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >http://www.ceai.org/fnewsletter/nl06/nl_feb06/questions_evolution.doc
>
> >> I saw no answers there as to how a small handful of people fed and keep
> >> clean hundreds of thousands of animals on the Ark for a year. Where they
> >> stored all the food and special diets for them and where they stored all
> >> the
> >> fresh water they'd need. How did they remove the millions of gallons of
> >> urine and millions of tons of feces? Not to mention the monster
> >> aquariums
> >> needed to keep the fresh water fish alive for that year. How did they
> >> refrigerate the fresh meat needed for the carnivores? Or keep the fruit
> >> fresh for the fruit eaters? Or how Noah managed to get all the animals
> >> from
> >> all around the earth to the Ark. Did he ship them by steamer or by Cargo
> >> plane? You're a nutcase..........
>
> > See, you look for something you like but don't answer what you don't.
>
> Stop avoiding the issues. Your stupid creationist websites ignore the
> questions non-creationists ask.
>
disprove them. Just name the questions that they don't ask if you
have one. But you still have to answer the questions.
> > Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
>
> All Jesus knew was what he was told or read. There is no evidence anywhere
> on earth of worldwide flood.
>
There's lots of evidence of sudden floods making things happen that
don't norally happen such as animals that would never come close to
being together in the wild all dying together because of the flood
waters putting them in one spot. Jesus helped in all creation, and
had a pre-existence before the earth was made.
> The Ark
>
> > supposedly has had many visitors sitting on Mt. Ararat via
> > expeditions.
>
> That Ark was never proved to even be a boat of some kind. It's also much to
> small to hold more than a handful of animals. How can you be so ignorant?
>
The Bible gives it's dimensions, and the type of wood used.
> The raising to the status of mountains from hills and
>
> > the moving of the continents would be an viable explanation with an
> > increase of water.
>
> No it wouldn't because the Mts. are millions of years old. Besides dimwit,
> the bible mentioned mountains at the time the mythical flood was supposed to
> have happened. Didn't you read the bible?
>
You don't know how high the mountains were a million years ago.
> > Changes can occur within the 'kinds'
>
> Changes? Now you're talking about evolution which you just claimed never
> happened. Make up your mind.
>
Evolution is a word that has no special meaning. Change is change and
can be used in numerous ways.
> the Bible
>
> > talks about so a variety of animals could be easily increased and
> > transported after the Flood subsided.
>
> Evolution doesn't happen that fast. Transported all over the earth from
> Ararat? How? UPS? Federal Express? You're reaching for answers when you
> have none! You totally ignored how a handful of people removed millions of
> tons and gallons of waste from hundreds of thousands of living
> creatures........
>
It's called procreation, and animals travel. People used animals for
everyday use, and travel as well.
CJ
>
>
> > CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f2ccff74-a894-4d6f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 11 Dec, 13:31, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:822cc272-056e-47c6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Creationism is NOT science. It's superstition and baseless beliefs.
> >> That's
> >> why it's not taught in schools. There is zero evidence for a magical
> >> "creation."
>
> >> > If you want to click onto the pages and numbers referenced in the
> >> > twenty questions, one can do so by going to the site where the Article
> >> > of the Twenty Questions For Evolutionists came from:
>
> >> >http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
>
> >> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > But why let something be taught in schools that's psuedo science
> > according to creationists.
>
> Because Creationists are not scientists or biologists or cosmologists or
> zoologists. They're church men with no more education in the sciences than
> you are. We cannot teach myths and fables and superstitions in our schools
> and call it science.
>
walks of life and are permeated in the science community. No one
even has to teach Creation accounts, it just would be a fair playing
field if one spoke of an Engineer from an outside source of the earth
having to have a part.
> Why can't they have equal time poking
>
> > holes in a theory that is extremely laughable at times. No fossils,
>
> What do you call dinosaur bones millions of years old? What do you call
> the skeleton of Lucy?
>
a 40% skelton with knee problems. Why aren't there millions of
potential ape-men in whatever time period you would select? Not very
convincing that you have a few skeletons that don't make any
definitive statement other than what's been proved is they are either
a chimp or a human.
http://www.kent-hovind.com/evolution/evolution3.htm
> > no explaining the sudden complex organs and how they ever
> > intertwined. Just mindless speculation from people bent on disproving
> > that there could be a Creator.
>
> Why do you make such claims when this information has been known for years?
> Why haven't you done research online and educate yourself?
>
Why don't you say something profound instead of caterwauling like a
harpooned beached whale?
> > Of course evolutionists who pooh pooh won't say why they believe that
> > is so.
>
> Because there is evidence for evolution and none for a mythical magical
> creation by a sky pixie or space alien.
>
Everything points to creation. Evolution is never seen, just
imagined. Anybody can make up a bunch of years and make a cartoon
from it. Nothing simple becomes complex. It's already complex, even
bacteria.
> They could give a little short discourse that could be
>
> > poignant (if it were the truth),
>
> What would they say? They'd have to explain all the thousands of creation
> myths, not just your creation myth. They'd have to tell the children there
> is no evidence for any of the creation myths.... so why bother?
>
No, they wouldn't have to do that. They would have to show how
evolution accounted for all life on earth as we see in present form.
They can't. Enter the creationists.
> but no...it's go to the classroom
>
> > where they want to disprove God, and prove something on their own.
>
> That's bullcrap. They never mention the Gods/Goddesses/demons/wicked ghosts
> etc. in the schools as you would know had you gone to a normal school. None
> of the 10,000 known gods and goddesses are discussed.
>
It's all over the net and every NG that relates. They surely say it a
lot especially amongs themselves, and it wouldn't be politically
correct to offend people else they would lose their tenures.
Evolutionists want to prove God didn't do it so much, they will bite
at anything they find in the dirt. Then the cartoons exponentiate.
CJ
>
>
> > CJ
curtjester1
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
source, when we don't see that happening today? What we see is
complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even the most ardent
evolutionists will have to agree to that. On that alone it shouldn't
be 'unusual' for people to think that a Creator must have done it.
Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'. I just get the
impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists will jump on the
'time is the elixir' for everything, and body components can be put in
any category anyone deems.
CJ
>
> > 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates
> > information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in
> > DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books' worth of
> > coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion
> > cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant
> > galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent
> > source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA
> > molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See
> > pages 9 and 15.)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
>
> > 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only
> > be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
>
> > 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
>
> > How could immune systems evolve? (See page 19.)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
>
> > 9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take
> > vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that
> > hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
>
> > 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards?
> > Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
>
> > 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--
> > any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't
> > students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the
> > evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? What about the almost 200
> > other moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)
>
Ips-Switch
> On 11 Dec, 16:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> Stop avoiding the issues. Your stupid creationist websites ignore the
>> questions non-creationists ask.
>>
> You're the one avoiding. They make assertations. It's up to you to
> disprove them
You made the assertion that the gods exist so it's up to YOU to prove that
they do. I did not assert they exist.
Just name the questions that they don't ask if you
> have one. But you still have to answer the questions.
All those questions have been answered many years ago, that's why
Creationism isn't taught in the schools. Since you assert the gods exist it
is up to you to prove beyond a doubt that they do. So far all you've tossed
in our face is an unscientific fundy website that doesn't even answer one
question.
>> > Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
>>
>> All Jesus knew was what he was told or read. There is no evidence
>> anywhere
>> on earth of worldwide flood.
>>
> There's lots of evidence of sudden floods making things happen that
> don't norally happen such as animals that would never come close to
> being together in the wild all dying together because of the flood
> waters putting them in one spot. Jesus helped in all creation, and
> had a pre-existence before the earth was made.
Regional floods are common and always occurred. Worldwide floods so deep to
cover the highest mountains as ascribed in the bible never occurred. There
is no evidence for a worldwide flood.
>
>> The Ark
>>
>> > supposedly has had many visitors sitting on Mt. Ararat via
>> > expeditions.
>>
>> That Ark was never proved to even be a boat of some kind. It's also much
>> to
>> small to hold more than a handful of animals. How can you be so
>> ignorant?
>>
> The Bible gives it's dimensions, and the type of wood used.
Which is much too small to hold hundreds of thousands of animals and enough
food and fresh water for them all.
>
>> The raising to the status of mountains from hills and
>>
>> > the moving of the continents would be an viable explanation with an
>> > increase of water.
>>
>> No it wouldn't because the Mts. are millions of years old. Besides
>> dimwit,
>> the bible mentioned mountains at the time the mythical flood was supposed
>> to
>> have happened. Didn't you read the bible?
>>
> You don't know how high the mountains were a million years ago.
The bible claims the flood happened a mere few thousands of years ago, not
millions of years ago. Read the OT again.
>
>> > Changes can occur within the 'kinds'
>>
>> Changes? Now you're talking about evolution which you just claimed never
>> happened. Make up your mind.
>>
> Evolution is a word that has no special meaning. Change is change and
> can be used in numerous ways.
So you admit evolution occurred. Look at the Noan time line in the bible.
The mythical Noah didn't live millions of years ago.
>
>> the Bible
>>
>> > talks about so a variety of animals could be easily increased and
>> > transported after the Flood subsided.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't happen that fast. Transported all over the earth from
>> Ararat? How? UPS? Federal Express? You're reaching for answers when
>> you
>> have none! You totally ignored how a handful of people removed millions
>> of
>> tons and gallons of waste from hundreds of thousands of living
>> creatures........
>>
> It's called procreation, and animals travel.
So the animal procreated and that somehow allowed them to travel over the
oceans and through the air........ you make no sense at all. Even if Noah
had magic food and water for them stored in a cloud they all would have
starved to death when the water receded since plants vegetarians depend on
for life cannot live underwater. The earth would have been a slimy stinking
muddy mass of decomposing corpses, dead rotting vegetation and worse.
Totally unfit for life.
People used animals for
> everyday use, and travel as well.
Irrelevant to the topic.
>
> CJ
Ips-Switch
> On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST),
>> curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
> Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> source, when we don't see that happening today? What we see is
> complex systems within systems well-packaged.
That was all explained for you. Didn't you read it? If so then there is no
reason to ask. He didn't ask you to explain in your own words how a god
magically made life from one source. Now be a good fundy and *READ* the
sites he recommended.
Even the most ardent
> evolutionists will have to agree to that. On that alone it shouldn't
> be 'unusual' for people to think that a Creator must have done it.
> Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> today, or can't be duplicated in the lab
Nor can your gods creation be duplicated in the lab.... now be a good fundy
and *READ* the sites he recommended as they answer all your questions.
where it theoretically should
> happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'. I just get the
> impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists will jump on the
> 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body components can be put in
> any category anyone deems.
How typically dishonest of you to ask for information and then ignore it!
You have plenty of reading right here:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_
1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
>> http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.htmlhttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-22.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH370.html
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
> On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
> Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> source, when we don't see that happening today?
Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
> What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
> On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> Creator must have done it.
Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
> Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
> I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
> will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
> components can be put in any category anyone deems.
That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
can all be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
--
<Meph|st0> Complaint : BOUGTH IT FOR MY COUSIN WHO HAD CANCER, ITEM
NEVER ARRIVED AND MY COUSIN DIED
<Meph|st0> thats the greatest ebay feedback i have ever seen
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66667bde-a790-450a...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 11 Dec, 16:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> Stop avoiding the issues. Your stupid creationist websites ignore the
> >> questions non-creationists ask.
>
> > You're the one avoiding. They make assertations. It's up to you to
> > disprove them
>
> You made the assertion that the gods exist so it's up to YOU to prove that
> they do. I did not assert they exist.
>
has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
> Just name the questions that they don't ask if you
>
> > have one. But you still have to answer the questions.
>
> All those questions have been answered many years ago, that's why
> Creationism isn't taught in the schools. Since you assert the gods exist it
> is up to you to prove beyond a doubt that they do. So far all you've tossed
> in our face is an unscientific fundy website that doesn't even answer one
> question.
>
Attempted to be answered, by not by you. Coward. All the website
does as well as creationism in general is point out the
'impossibilites' of evolution having a part in all life workings and
decisions on this planet.
> >> > Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
>
> >> All Jesus knew was what he was told or read. There is no evidence
> >> anywhere
> >> on earth of worldwide flood.
>
> > There's lots of evidence of sudden floods making things happen that
> > don't norally happen such as animals that would never come close to
> > being together in the wild all dying together because of the flood
> > waters putting them in one spot. Jesus helped in all creation, and
> > had a pre-existence before the earth was made.
>
> Regional floods are common and always occurred. Worldwide floods so deep to
> cover the highest mountains as ascribed in the bible never occurred. There
> is no evidence for a worldwide flood.
>
If it could happen regionally then it could happen globally. All you
would need for the animals is to have a region not having animals to
one having one. That's why they found elephants up in Siberia.
>
>
> >> The Ark
>
> >> > supposedly has had many visitors sitting on Mt. Ararat via
> >> > expeditions.
>
> >> That Ark was never proved to even be a boat of some kind. It's also much
> >> to
> >> small to hold more than a handful of animals. How can you be so
> >> ignorant?
>
> > The Bible gives it's dimensions, and the type of wood used.
>
> Which is much too small to hold hundreds of thousands of animals and enough
> food and fresh water for them all.
>
You wouldn't need hundreds of thousands. Animals procreate fast and
often so a few years can get generations going.
>
>
> >> The raising to the status of mountains from hills and
>
> >> > the moving of the continents would be an viable explanation with an
> >> > increase of water.
>
> >> No it wouldn't because the Mts. are millions of years old. Besides
> >> dimwit,
> >> the bible mentioned mountains at the time the mythical flood was supposed
> >> to
> >> have happened. Didn't you read the bible?
>
> > You don't know how high the mountains were a million years ago.
>
> The bible claims the flood happened a mere few thousands of years ago, not
> millions of years ago. Read the OT again.
>
Yes sir, colonel. Yeah, that's what it says. Earth is a small
planet, it doesn't take long for things to happen.
>
>
> >> > Changes can occur within the 'kinds'
>
> >> Changes? Now you're talking about evolution which you just claimed never
> >> happened. Make up your mind.
>
> > Evolution is a word that has no special meaning. Change is change and
> > can be used in numerous ways.
>
> So you admit evolution occurred. Look at the Noan time line in the bible.
> The mythical Noah didn't live millions of years ago.
>
You are losing train of thought here. It's obvious change occurs, but
that's the equation of trying to prove what's asserted. The well-
known Noah, known worldwide in all cultures in their relics, doesn't
have to live millions of years ago. Your monkey-men might, but then
that's the real myth isn't it?
>
>
> >> the Bible
>
> >> > talks about so a variety of animals could be easily increased and
> >> > transported after the Flood subsided.
>
> >> Evolution doesn't happen that fast. Transported all over the earth from
> >> Ararat? How? UPS? Federal Express? You're reaching for answers when
> >> you
> >> have none! You totally ignored how a handful of people removed millions
> >> of
> >> tons and gallons of waste from hundreds of thousands of living
> >> creatures........
>
> > It's called procreation, and animals travel.
>
> So the animal procreated and that somehow allowed them to travel over the
> oceans and through the air........ you make no sense at all. Even if Noah
> had magic food and water for them stored in a cloud they all would have
> starved to death when the water receded since plants vegetarians depend on
> for life cannot live underwater. The earth would have been a slimy stinking
> muddy mass of decomposing corpses, dead rotting vegetation and worse.
> Totally unfit for life.
>
You're getting silly. People take animals everywhere. If they had
boats in Noah's day, don't you think they had them then?
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST),
> >> curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> > source, when we don't see that happening today? What we see is
> > complex systems within systems well-packaged.
>
> That was all explained for you. Didn't you read it? If so then there is no
> reason to ask. He didn't ask you to explain in your own words how a god
> magically made life from one source. Now be a good fundy and *READ* the
> sites he recommended.
>
> Even the most ardent
>
anyone to tell in their own words what went on to support their view,
and not some selective research that could mean anything. If he
needs a site to support his view, then he needs better reading and
comprehension, doesn't he?
> > evolutionists will have to agree to that. On that alone it shouldn't
> > be 'unusual' for people to think that a Creator must have done it.
> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab
>
> Nor can your gods creation be duplicated in the lab.... now be a good fundy
> and *READ* the sites he recommended as they answer all your questions.
>
You have just disproved evolution, by admitting to a worldwide
audience that life cannot be created from scratch. Of course God,
would not have to reside in a lab, would he?
> where it theoretically should
>
> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'. I just get the
> > impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists will jump on the
> > 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body components can be put in
> > any category anyone deems.
>
> How typically dishonest of you to ask for information and then ignore it!
>
All I have asked is for you to say something profound about how life
arose and how it translated into all life we see today. We know it's
too complicated from bacteria, and cells, to systems within systems to
do anything on it's own. It needs quite an intelligent catalyst.
Even your evolution shows on TV get quite comical when they assign
nature and the environment 'personality'. How divulging of them, and
yet they carefully leave a 'god personality' out of the 'equation'.
Creationists just say everything in nature is not some environmental
contest or cataclysmic event. And then you ask us and the world to
believe something that is not observable, but left to the imagination
over time. How disappointing!
> You have plenty of reading right here:
>
Oh, teacher, do I get extra credit? Does anyone believe these sites?
If so, give us a reason for doing so.
CJ
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_
> 1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
>
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.htmlhttp://www.talkorigin...
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
> >>http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.htmlhttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/as...
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH370.html
Ips-Switch
You're still unable to comprehend what people write.
It has nothing to do if gods exist per se. It
> has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
> than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
So now you have humans evolving in outer space? Some people do believe this
planet was seeded from somewhere else in the Universe.
>> All those questions have been answered many years ago, that's why
>> Creationism isn't taught in the schools. Since you assert the gods exist
>> it
>> is up to you to prove beyond a doubt that they do. So far all you've
>> tossed
>> in our face is an unscientific fundy website that doesn't even answer one
>> question.
> Attempted to be answered, by not by you. Coward.
They're not answering the questions. It's a religious site and not a
scientific one. Give me a good non religious site showing evidence of gods
and demons, a magical sudden creation etc.
All the website
> does as well as creationism in general is point out the
> 'impossibilites' of evolution having a part in all life workings and
> decisions on this planet.
I saw no SCIENTIFIC evidence at that site proving any such thing or showing
any scientific evidence of a creation.
>> Regional floods are common and always occurred. Worldwide floods so deep
>> to
>> cover the highest mountains as ascribed in the bible never occurred.
>> There
>> is no evidence for a worldwide flood.
> If it could happen regionally then it could happen globally.
Then there would be evidence of it. There is none. And there isn't enough
liquid on earth to cover the highest Mts. We've been over this before.
All you
> would need for the animals is to have a region not having animals to
> one having one. That's why they found elephants up in Siberia.
This has all been covered before with you. If water covered the earth for a
year all vegetation would be dead and any animals on a Ark would quickly die
of starvation. You know this but keep beating a dead horse.
>>
>> Which is much too small to hold hundreds of thousands of animals and
>> enough
>> food and fresh water for them all.
>>
> You wouldn't need hundreds of thousands. Animals procreate fast and
> often so a few years can get generations going.
That's absurd. Taking two of each would be hundreds of thousands of animals
of all kinds since horses don't give birth to wolves and cats don't give
birth to robins which is what you are claiming. First explain how Noah
covered all the earth and captured and shipped all the animals, insects,
birds, reptiles etc to the Ark... then explain how he knew all their diets
and shipped all that to the Ark,... then where he stored billions of tons of
food and water on such a small Ark. Then we'll get to how such a few people
removed the millions or billions of gallons of urine and feces every day and
brought fresh air into the Ark to prevent ammonia poisoning from the urine.
>>
>> So you admit evolution occurred. Look at the Noan time line in the
>> bible.
>> The mythical Noah didn't live millions of years ago.
> You are losing train of thought here. It's obvious change occurs, but
> that's the equation of trying to prove what's asserted. The well-
> known Noah, known worldwide in all cultures in their relics, doesn't
> have to live millions of years ago. Your monkey-men might, but then
> that's the real myth isn't it?
You claimed he lived a millions years ago and the animals, with nothing to
eat on the slime/mud covered earth then started to "change".... evolution!
They all would have died quickly in the barren mud.
>>
>> So the animal procreated and that somehow allowed them to travel over the
>> oceans and through the air........ you make no sense at all. Even if
>> Noah
>> had magic food and water for them stored in a cloud they all would have
>> starved to death when the water receded since plants vegetarians depend
>> on
>> for life cannot live underwater. The earth would have been a slimy
>> stinking
>> muddy mass of decomposing corpses, dead rotting vegetation and worse.
>> Totally unfit for life.
>>
> You're getting silly. People take animals everywhere. If they had
> boats in Noah's day, don't you think they had them then?
So Noah and his sons traveled the earth in those early boats and captured
animals from all over the earth...... You're beyond silly. You're
delusional where these myths are concerned. The story of Noah was based on
an older myth - the Epic of Gilgamish. How can you be so ignorant in this
day and age.
Ips-Switch
>>
>> That was all explained for you. Didn't you read it? If so then there is
>> no
>> reason to ask. He didn't ask you to explain in your own words how a god
>> magically made life from one source. Now be a good fundy and *READ* the
>> sites he recommended.
>>
>> Even the most ardent
>>
> Yes your condescending lordship. I did want him to as well as you or
> anyone to tell in their own words what went on to support their view,
You have to ask? The EVIDENCE for evolution supports people's view. There
is NO EVIDENCE for a magical fantastical creation. You are totally unaware
of the evidence because you were either home schooled or slept through
classes. You apparently don't read the newspaper or watch TV either.
> and not some selective research that could mean anything. If he
> needs a site to support his view, then he needs better reading and
> comprehension, doesn't he?
No, you need to better educate yourself. He can type you a 100 KB post and
you will still reject the evidence. Why should he or anyone else bother?
>>
>> Nor can your gods creation be duplicated in the lab.... now be a good
>> fundy
>> and *READ* the sites he recommended as they answer all your questions.
>>
> You have just disproved evolution, by admitting to a worldwide
> audience that life cannot be created from scratch. Of course God,
> would not have to reside in a lab, would he?
Would life that started in the Oceans need to reside in a lab? You just
disproved the gods, goddesses and demons. :-)))
>>
>> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
>> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'. I just get the
>> > impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists will jump on the
>> > 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body components can be put in
>> > any category anyone deems.
>>
>> How typically dishonest of you to ask for information and then ignore it!
We've covered all this fundy nonsense and superstition before.
> All I have asked is for you to say something profound about how life
> arose and how it translated into all life we see today. We know it's
> too complicated from bacteria, and cells, to systems within systems to
> do anything on it's own. It needs quite an intelligent catalyst.
> Even your evolution shows on TV get quite comical when they assign
> nature and the environment 'personality'. How divulging of them, and
> yet they carefully leave a 'god personality' out of the 'equation'.
> Creationists just say everything in nature is not some environmental
> contest or cataclysmic event. And then you ask us and the world to
> believe something that is not observable, but left to the imagination
> over time. How disappointing!
>
>> You have plenty of reading right here:
>>
> Oh, teacher, do I get extra credit? Does anyone believe these sites?
> If so, give us a reason for doing so.
Give us a reason for believing in myths, fables and superstition. You still
avoid giving us evidence or proof of this mass murdering and serial killing
god of the Hebrews.
See, you remain IGNORANT because you refuse to read and learn. You just want
to beat your KB with the same old fundy nonsense. Worse yet you never even
read your bible. You were unaware the Mts existed 5 to 6 thousands years
ago. Get back to us after reading the sites below:
curtjester1
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>
> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>
how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
Still assuming what needs to be proved.
> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> > Creator must have done it.
>
> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
nature operates and always has.
> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>
> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
> can all be found here:
>
That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words. The
sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
These are just opinions, and I am just interested in how God could or
couldn't have done things. Again it's obvious that life is too
complex to have even the smallest to be accidently in chaotic
conditions brought about like bacteria, or a cell. If it can't be
done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution' has reached the
apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them at whim, then
the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e9512fe5-006b-47a7...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 11 Dec, 20:50, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>
> > You're still avoiding.
>
> You're still unable to comprehend what people write.
>
> It has nothing to do if gods exist per se. It
>
> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
>
> So now you have humans evolving in outer space? Some people do believe this
> planet was seeded from somewhere else in the Universe.
>
premise.
> >> All those questions have been answered many years ago, that's why
> >> Creationism isn't taught in the schools. Since you assert the gods exist
> >> it
> >> is up to you to prove beyond a doubt that they do. So far all you've
> >> tossed
> >> in our face is an unscientific fundy website that doesn't even answer one
> >> question.
> > Attempted to be answered, by not by you. Coward.
>
> They're not answering the questions. It's a religious site and not a
> scientific one. Give me a good non religious site showing evidence of gods
> and demons, a magical sudden creation etc.
>
You don't need one, you need to believe in logic that a supreme
engineer devised a pattern for our planet or prove that one couldn't
have been involved.
> All the website
>
> > does as well as creationism in general is point out the
> > 'impossibilites' of evolution having a part in all life workings and
> > decisions on this planet.
>
> I saw no SCIENTIFIC evidence at that site proving any such thing or showing
> any scientific evidence of a creation.
>
You don't need any site, or a scientific explanation. Explain how
life can arise in any condition for starters. Just start arising.
You can use, mud, algae, sun, water. If you can prove that then, you
can prove how it became viable to survive on it's own, and then become
something else. Even bacteria have motors. Explain how they
developed, and explain how that could have anything to do with eating,
sexual behavior, breathing, hunting for food, sleeping...etc, ad
nauseum.. There are thousands upon thousands of 'situations' that you
must explain...not that 'it did'.
> >> Regional floods are common and always occurred. Worldwide floods so deep
> >> to
> >> cover the highest mountains as ascribed in the bible never occurred.
> >> There
> >> is no evidence for a worldwide flood.
> > If it could happen regionally then it could happen globally.
>
> Then there would be evidence of it. There is none. And there isn't enough
> liquid on earth to cover the highest Mts. We've been over this before.
>
Agaiin you assume that there were Mt. Everests at the time. What if
the tallest mountain was 1,000 feet?
> All you
>
> > would need for the animals is to have a region not having animals to
> > one having one. That's why they found elephants up in Siberia.
>
> This has all been covered before with you. If water covered the earth for a
> year all vegetation would be dead and any animals on a Ark would quickly die
> of starvation. You know this but keep beating a dead horse.
>
And it wouldn't grow back?
>
>
> >> Which is much too small to hold hundreds of thousands of animals and
> >> enough
> >> food and fresh water for them all.
>
> > You wouldn't need hundreds of thousands. Animals procreate fast and
> > often so a few years can get generations going.
>
> That's absurd. Taking two of each would be hundreds of thousands of animals
> of all kinds since horses don't give birth to wolves and cats don't give
> birth to robins which is what you are claiming. First explain how Noah
> covered all the earth and captured and shipped all the animals, insects,
> birds, reptiles etc to the Ark... then explain how he knew all their diets
> and shipped all that to the Ark,... then where he stored billions of tons of
> food and water on such a small Ark. Then we'll get to how such a few people
> removed the millions or billions of gallons of urine and feces every day and
> brought fresh air into the Ark to prevent ammonia poisoning from the urine.
>
He had God behind him and years to prepare. He and his family
survived.
>
>
> >> So you admit evolution occurred. Look at the Noan time line in the
> >> bible.
> >> The mythical Noah didn't live millions of years ago.
> > You are losing train of thought here. It's obvious change occurs, but
> > that's the equation of trying to prove what's asserted. The well-
> > known Noah, known worldwide in all cultures in their relics, doesn't
> > have to live millions of years ago. Your monkey-men might, but then
> > that's the real myth isn't it?
>
> You claimed he lived a millions years ago and the animals, with nothing to
> eat on the slime/mud covered earth then started to "change".... evolution!
> They all would have died quickly in the barren mud.
>
I didn't claim he lived millions of years ago. I said if your
monkeys-humans lived millions of years ago, they should have left a
wonderful trail of transitions.
>
>
> >> So the animal procreated and that somehow allowed them to travel over the
> >> oceans and through the air........ you make no sense at all. Even if
> >> Noah
> >> had magic food and water for them stored in a cloud they all would have
> >> starved to death when the water receded since plants vegetarians depend
> >> on
> >> for life cannot live underwater. The earth would have been a slimy
> >> stinking
> >> muddy mass of decomposing corpses, dead rotting vegetation and worse.
> >> Totally unfit for life.
>
> > You're getting silly. People take animals everywhere. If they had
> > boats in Noah's day, don't you think they had them then?
>
> So Noah and his sons traveled the earth in those early boats and captured
> animals from all over the earth...... You're beyond silly. You're
> delusional where these myths are concerned. The story of Noah was based on
> an older myth - the Epic of Gilgamish. How can you be so ignorant in this
> day and age.
>
They went in different directions, and is why we have basically 3
races of people. Animals and generations of people would have filled
the earth in no time.
CJ
>
>
>
>
> > CJ
>
> >> People used animals for
>
> >> > everyday use, and travel as well.
>
> >> Irrelevant to the topic.
>
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e27a9d6-0d9a-4408...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> That was all explained for you. Didn't you read it? If so then there is
> >> no
> >> reason to ask. He didn't ask you to explain in your own words how a god
> >> magically made life from one source. Now be a good fundy and *READ* the
> >> sites he recommended.
>
> >> Even the most ardent
>
> > Yes your condescending lordship. I did want him to as well as you or
> > anyone to tell in their own words what went on to support their view,
>
> You have to ask? The EVIDENCE for evolution supports people's view. There
> is NO EVIDENCE for a magical fantastical creation. You are totally unaware
> of the evidence because you were either home schooled or slept through
> classes. You apparently don't read the newspaper or watch TV either.
>
massive intelligence in nature, and he was a numbers man. You only
sight people's views for your reason for evolution. If you thought
for awhile you would form different opinions if you didn't have those
opinions driven down your throat. People didn't even think of
evolution til 150 years ago. They were intelligent enough to many
magnificent things like build Pyramids and things, but they always
attributed life to something higher than themselves.
> > and not some selective research that could mean anything. If he
> > needs a site to support his view, then he needs better reading and
> > comprehension, doesn't he?
>
> No, you need to better educate yourself. He can type you a 100 KB post and
> you will still reject the evidence. Why should he or anyone else bother?
>
You need to define education. Because something is in a course
schedule or is written in magazines is not compelling unless you can
answer the basic questions of life which you still avoid and can't.
Just say something profound, we are all waiting.
>
>
> >> Nor can your gods creation be duplicated in the lab.... now be a good
> >> fundy
> >> and *READ* the sites he recommended as they answer all your questions.
>
> > You have just disproved evolution, by admitting to a worldwide
> > audience that life cannot be created from scratch. Of course God,
> > would not have to reside in a lab, would he?
>
> Would life that started in the Oceans need to reside in a lab? You just
> disproved the gods, goddesses and demons. :-)))
>
What does an ocean have to do with anything remotely to the starting
of life? In a chaotic watery mess, vs. water and ingredients that
aren't chaotic. The logic just isn't there, but then you would have
to believe you have a 'God-given brain'.
>
>
> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'. I just get the
> >> > impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists will jump on the
> >> > 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body components can be put in
> >> > any category anyone deems.
>
> >> How typically dishonest of you to ask for information and then ignore it!
>
> We've covered all this fundy nonsense and superstition before.
>
It's just a typical thing evolutionists are conditioned to slough off
on.
>
>
>
>
> > All I have asked is for you to say something profound about how life
> > arose and how it translated into all life we see today. We know it's
> > too complicated from bacteria, and cells, to systems within systems to
> > do anything on it's own. It needs quite an intelligent catalyst.
> > Even your evolution shows on TV get quite comical when they assign
> > nature and the environment 'personality'. How divulging of them, and
> > yet they carefully leave a 'god personality' out of the 'equation'.
> > Creationists just say everything in nature is not some environmental
> > contest or cataclysmic event. And then you ask us and the world to
> > believe something that is not observable, but left to the imagination
> > over time. How disappointing!
>
> >> You have plenty of reading right here:
>
> > Oh, teacher, do I get extra credit? Does anyone believe these sites?
> > If so, give us a reason for doing so.
>
> Give us a reason for believing in myths, fables and superstition. You still
> avoid giving us evidence or proof of this mass murdering and serial killing
> god of the Hebrews.
>
Taking of life is justified in many respects isn't it? Why can't a
just God, take life when people are viscious and unrepentant? We
believe God created, and God can manuever. The creation, the
fullfillment of prophecies time and again without fail, and morality
and life of Jesus are irrefutable. And the book of the Bible written
over 1,500 years by so many writers that corroborate each other is
beyond any Hollywood scripting.
> See, you remain IGNORANT because you refuse to read and learn. You just want
> to beat your KB with the same old fundy nonsense. Worse yet you never even
> read your bible. You were unaware the Mts existed 5 to 6 thousands years
> ago. Get back to us after reading the sites below:
>
You haven't given any reason to read further. I and many watch the
Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet. There are many good things that
are brought out. Lot's of the theory is disagreeable, but as they
say, the proof is in the pudding.
CJ
>
>
>
>
> > CJ
>
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
>
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_
> >> 1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.htmlhttp://www.talkorig...
>
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.htmlhttp://www.talkorigin...
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
> >> >>http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.htmlhttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/as...
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH370.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
> On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
>> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>>
>> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
>> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
>> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>>
> Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
> how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
It does not deal with the first cause.
>> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
> Still assuming what needs to be proved.
It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
look at the evidence.
>> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
> Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
created out of dirt by a god.
>> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
>> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
>> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
>> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>>
>> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>>
> No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> nature operates and always has.
It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
>> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
>> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>>
>> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
>> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
>> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
>> can all be found here:
>>
> That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
I'm going to point you to it.
> The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
> creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
> making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
science hasn't already answered.
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>>
> These are just opinions,
Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
> and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
> things.
Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
from the lies creationists have taught you.
> Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
> to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
> a cell.
Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
> If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
> has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
> at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
--
Bushism 1-24:
"The public education system in America is one of the most important
foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from
all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have
the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic
society."
--Santa Clara, California; May 1, 2002
Ips-Switch
> On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
>> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
>> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
That's what YOU claimed!
Some people do believe this
>> planet was seeded from somewhere else in the Universe.
>>
> It doesn't really matter where does it? Humans came into being is the
> premise.
We evolved as did all other life on earth.
> You don't need one, you need to believe in logic that a supreme
> engineer devised a pattern for our planet or prove that one couldn't
> have been involved.
Which supreme being of the 10,000 known almighty gods out there? Please
provide evidence of this god's existence.
>> I saw no SCIENTIFIC evidence at that site proving any such thing or
>> showing
>> any scientific evidence of a creation.
> You don't need any site, or a scientific explanation.
Because YOU say so? Why should anyone believe you when you have no
scientific evidence?
Explain how
> life can arise in any condition for starters.
You've been give many websites explaining it to you. You refuse to read and
learn anything.
Just start arising.
> You can use, mud, algae, sun, water. If you can prove that then, you
> can prove how it became viable to survive on it's own, and then become
> something else. Even bacteria have motors. Explain how they
> developed, and explain how that could have anything to do with eating,
> sexual behavior, breathing, hunting for food, sleeping...etc, ad
> nauseum.. There are thousands upon thousands of 'situations' that you
> must explain...not that 'it did'.
It's all already been explained to you more than once.
>>
>> Then there would be evidence of it. There is none. And there isn't
>> enough
>> liquid on earth to cover the highest Mts. We've been over this before.
> Agaiin you assume that there were Mt. Everests at the time. What if
> the tallest mountain was 1,000 feet?
That's not what the bible claimed. Now you're so desperate you are changing
the bible. You know nothing about Mts. and how and when they arose because
you did not go to school. You are totally ignorant of the natural word
around you. Show me evidence Mt. Everest arose in the past 5000 years....
right after the mythical flood.
>>
>> This has all been covered before with you. If water covered the earth
>> for a
>> year all vegetation would be dead and any animals on a Ark would quickly
>> die
>> of starvation. You know this but keep beating a dead horse.
>>
> And it wouldn't grow back?
What did the animals, birds, insects, bacteria, fungi, amphibians etc. eat
until the few remaining viable seeds that may have survived sprouted? Land
plants and their seeds do not survive a years submersion in salt or brackish
water for months on end. By then all animal life would have died, including
the Noah family. You're still avoiding how hundreds of thousands of animals
fit in the Ark, how all their waste was removed and were the millions of
tons of food and water were stored on the Ark.
>>
>> > You wouldn't need hundreds of thousands. Animals procreate fast and
>> > often so a few years can get generations going.
>> That's absurd. Taking two of each would be hundreds of thousands of
>> animals
>> of all kinds since horses don't give birth to wolves and cats don't give
>> birth to robins which is what you are claiming. First explain how Noah
>> covered all the earth and captured and shipped all the animals, insects,
>> birds, reptiles etc to the Ark... then explain how he knew all their
>> diets
>> and shipped all that to the Ark,... then where he stored billions of tons
>> of
>> food and water on such a small Ark. Then we'll get to how such a few
>> people
>> removed the millions or billions of gallons of urine and feces every day
>> and
>> brought fresh air into the Ark to prevent ammonia poisoning from the
>> urine.
>>
> He had God behind him and years to prepare. He and his family
> survived.
Explain HOW. There is no mention of God shipping pairs of all the living
things on earth to Noah by UPS, steamer, cargo plane, slow-boat-to-China or
whatever. You failed to explain how the waste was removed and where the
food and water for a year was stored.
>>
>> You claimed he lived a millions years ago and the animals, with nothing
>> to
>> eat on the slime/mud covered earth then started to "change"....
>> evolution!
>> They all would have died quickly in the barren mud.
>>
> I didn't claim he lived millions of years ago. I said if your
> monkeys-humans lived millions of years ago, they should have left a
> wonderful trail of transitions.
Answer the questions above first.
>> So Noah and his sons traveled the earth in those early boats and captured
>> animals from all over the earth...... You're beyond silly. You're
>> delusional where these myths are concerned. The story of Noah was based
>> on
>> an older myth - the Epic of Gilgamish. How can you be so ignorant in this
>> day and age.
> They went in different directions, and is why we have basically 3
> races of people. Animals and generations of people would have filled
> the earth in no time.
You failed to answer the questions. The animals would all have quickly
starved to death in the barren mud and slime covered earth. After the
predators ate the other animals and the Noah family all would have starved
to death of disease from the decomposing corpses and mud didn't kill them
first. Basic biology.
Ips-Switch
> On 12 Dec, 14:47, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>>
>> You have to ask? The EVIDENCE for evolution supports people's view.
>> There
>> is NO EVIDENCE for a magical fantastical creation. You are totally
>> unaware
>> of the evidence because you were either home schooled or slept through
>> classes. You apparently don't read the newspaper or watch TV either.
> Everything points to a Supreme Engineer.
What is everything? What scientific evidence or proof are you speaking of?
Einstein spoke of the
> massive intelligence in nature, and he was a numbers man.
Einstein never claimed a magical sky daddy created the universe.
You only
> sight people's views for your reason for evolution. If you thought
> for awhile you would form different opinions if you didn't have those
> opinions driven down your throat. People didn't even think of
> evolution til 150 years ago.
Because the evidence for evolution came to light at that time. Before then
they knew no better. There was no rational scientific explanation before
then. But there were always men who rejected the supernatural silliness of
a petty self centered killer god creating everything.
They were intelligent enough to many
> magnificent things like build Pyramids and things, but they always
> attributed life to something higher than themselves.
Because they knew no better at the time. The gods and goddesses and demons
filled the GAPS they had no answers for. You should have learned this long
ago.
>>
>> No, you need to better educate yourself. He can type you a 100 KB post
>> and
>> you will still reject the evidence. Why should he or anyone else bother?
> You need to define education.
You need to read the information you ask for instead of beating around the
bushes day after day.
Because something is in a course
> schedule or is written in magazines is not compelling unless you can
> answer the basic questions of life which you still avoid and can't.
> Just say something profound, we are all waiting.
They have been answered repeatedly for you. But like an idiot or
Alzheimer's sufferer you keep asking for the same information. Here it is
agin. Start reading:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Who the hell even pays any attention to anything Walt Brown says
anymore. He was a has-been ten years ago. (shrug)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Gary Bohn
news:1cadc536-8a6b-417b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Who the hell even pays any attention to anything Walt Brown says
> anymore. He was a has-been ten years ago. (shrug)
>
<snip sig>
Everyone who really, really, really wants the world to be only 6000
years old, are extremely good at rationalization and poor at
introspection.
--
Gary Bohn
NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE!
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:916dd6df-543c-4a1f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
> >> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
> >> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
>
> That's what YOU claimed!
>
> Some people do believe this
>
> >> planet was seeded from somewhere else in the Universe.
>
> > It doesn't really matter where does it? Humans came into being is the
> > premise.
>
> We evolved as did all other life on earth.
>
Evolved from what?
> > You don't need one, you need to believe in logic that a supreme
> > engineer devised a pattern for our planet or prove that one couldn't
> > have been involved.
>
> Which supreme being of the 10,000 known almighty gods out there? Please
> provide evidence of this god's existence.
>
It doesn't matter who, it matters that it was done. We have proof
that God has and still does communicate with earthly humans, and the
enormity of the Creation is just basic observation that all should be
able to readily see, that it is something that is beyond the
environment alone, or too magnificent to attribute to anything other
than something much more supreme than human intellect has to offer.
> >> I saw no SCIENTIFIC evidence at that site proving any such thing or
> >> showing
> >> any scientific evidence of a creation.
> > You don't need any site, or a scientific explanation.
>
> Because YOU say so? Why should anyone believe you when you have no
> scientific evidence?
>
If you see no magnificence in the world around you, then really it's
just a lost cause.
> Explain how
>
> > life can arise in any condition for starters.
>
> You've been give many websites explaining it to you. You refuse to read and
> learn anything.
>
Just give us a snippit of life arising. It should be permeating, from
the woods, our backyards, everywhere we step on this planet, but no we
don't see anything arising there, or in a laboratory. It must have
come from elsewhere.
> Just start arising.
>
> > You can use, mud, algae, sun, water. If you can prove that then, you
> > can prove how it became viable to survive on it's own, and then become
> > something else. Even bacteria have motors. Explain how they
> > developed, and explain how that could have anything to do with eating,
> > sexual behavior, breathing, hunting for food, sleeping...etc, ad
> > nauseum.. There are thousands upon thousands of 'situations' that you
> > must explain...not that 'it did'.
>
> It's all already been explained to you more than once.
>
Nothing has been explained, especially by you. Anyone can make a
scenario up. You need much more positive profound proof that all this
complexity was over time and never sudden. It just doesn't appear
that way to most of earth's inhabitants, only to a small segement of
scenarioists does this belief system of yours belong.
>
>
> >> Then there would be evidence of it. There is none. And there isn't
> >> enough
> >> liquid on earth to cover the highest Mts. We've been over this before.
> > Agaiin you assume that there were Mt. Everests at the time. What if
> > the tallest mountain was 1,000 feet?
>
> That's not what the bible claimed. Now you're so desperate you are changing
> the bible. You know nothing about Mts. and how and when they arose because
> you did not go to school. You are totally ignorant of the natural word
> around you. Show me evidence Mt. Everest arose in the past 5000 years....
> right after the mythical flood.
>
I really don't have to know all the details of the flood, as you or I
or anybody else was not there. You just brought that up to take the
subject away from creationism vs. evolution by tying what you deem a
myth to creationism which it has no bearing per se.
>
>
> >> This has all been covered before with you. If water covered the earth
> >> for a
> >> year all vegetation would be dead and any animals on a Ark would quickly
> >> die
> >> of starvation. You know this but keep beating a dead horse.
>
> > And it wouldn't grow back?
>
> What did the animals, birds, insects, bacteria, fungi, amphibians etc. eat
> until the few remaining viable seeds that may have survived sprouted? Land
> plants and their seeds do not survive a years submersion in salt or brackish
> water for months on end. By then all animal life would have died, including
> the Noah family. You're still avoiding how hundreds of thousands of animals
> fit in the Ark, how all their waste was removed and were the millions of
> tons of food and water were stored on the Ark.
You only narrow a scenario to fit your needs. They could have had
enough food left on the ark for a good while, or maybe some of the
nice dead animals were edible, like frozen tv dinners.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > You wouldn't need hundreds of thousands. Animals procreate fast and
> >> > often so a few years can get generations going.
> >> That's absurd. Taking two of each would be hundreds of thousands of
> >> animals
> >> of all kinds since horses don't give birth to wolves and cats don't give
> >> birth to robins which is what you are claiming. First explain how Noah
> >> covered all the earth and captured and shipped all the animals, insects,
> >> birds, reptiles etc to the Ark... then explain how he knew all their
> >> diets
> >> and shipped all that to the Ark,... then where he stored billions of tons
> >> of
> >> food and water on such a small Ark. Then we'll get to how such a few
> >> people
> >> removed the millions or billions of gallons of urine and feces every day
> >> and
> >> brought fresh air into the Ark to prevent ammonia poisoning from the
> >> urine.
>
> > He had God behind him and years to prepare. He and his family
> > survived.
>
> Explain HOW. There is no mention of God shipping pairs of all the living
> things on earth to Noah by UPS, steamer, cargo plane, slow-boat-to-China or
> whatever. You failed to explain how the waste was removed and where the
> food and water for a year was stored.
>
The waste could have been a daily chore, through air vents from the
top of the boat, that was above the sea. How does a regular boat do
this?
>
>
> >> You claimed he lived a millions years ago and the animals, with nothing
> >> to
> >> eat on the slime/mud covered earth then started to "change"....
> >> evolution!
> >> They all would have died quickly in the barren mud.
>
> > I didn't claim he lived millions of years ago. I said if your
> > monkeys-humans lived millions of years ago, they should have left a
> > wonderful trail of transitions.
>
> Answer the questions above first.
>
I think you better answer my question since your whole theory rests on
it. Imagine trusting in a whole theory, and the main crux of that
theory is so seriously flawed by lack of evidence, that it really
makes a laughing stock of that theory?
> >> So Noah and his sons traveled the earth in those early boats and captured
> >> animals from all over the earth...... You're beyond silly. You're
> >> delusional where these myths are concerned. The story of Noah was based
> >> on
> >> an older myth - the Epic of Gilgamish. How can you be so ignorant in this
> >> day and age.
> > They went in different directions, and is why we have basically 3
> > races of people. Animals and generations of people would have filled
> > the earth in no time.
>
> You failed to answer the questions. The animals would all have quickly
> starved to death in the barren mud and slime covered earth. After the
> predators ate the other animals and the Noah family all would have starved
> to death of disease from the decomposing corpses and mud didn't kill them
> first. Basic biology.- Hide quoted text -
>
They didn't even leave the ark til way after the rains had stopped if
my Genesis memory serves me right.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>
> >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
> >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
> >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>
> > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
> > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>
> Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
> It does not deal with the first cause.
>
the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly, the
name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> look at the evidence.
>
It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'. And proving change
does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate creationism from being
considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> created out of dirt by a god.
>
Show a brain evolving. Just because one can't pinpoint an event in
history doesn't mean it couldn't of happened.
> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> > nature operates and always has.
>
> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
do.
> >> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
> >> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
> >> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>
> >> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
> >> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
> >> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
> >> can all be found here:
>
> > That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
>
> According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
> I'm going to point you to it.
>
Like I said, I am not going to pore through websites when basically I
see Science shows on TV that make the same probable assertions. They
lack proof but are good on showing what they feel as fact.
> > The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
> > creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
> > making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
>
> No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
> science hasn't already answered.
>
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it. They might say the clitoris was
formerly a penis. Or they might say the clitoris was just a way
nature has to turn itself so humans could multiply faster. See how
scenarios are a dime a dozen? Why not say God created a clitoris for
sexual pleasure?
> > These are just opinions,
>
> Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
>
Science is just another one of those words like evolution that really
means knowledge, like evolution means change. Unless you realize
this, one is going to be easily deluded into thinking that is
'factual' or 'bona fide'.
> > and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
> > things.
>
> Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
> from the lies creationists have taught you.
>
We already know that there are over a 100 definitions of evolution and
creationism in just theory alone. We don't need to be deluded that
one little sector like yourself has all the secrets. You are
beginning to sound like a golf teacher.
> > Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
> > to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
> > a cell.
>
> Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
> came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
>
I posed that, under unchaotic laboratory conditions where brains have
supposedly been refined over and over one could make life happen at a
whim or with the best ingredients and possible catalysts known on this
earth for a little exhibition. But no, the massively chaotic world
wins out again. Not too good for the proof category, is it?
> > If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
> > has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
> > at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
>
> Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
> Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
> read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
> Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
>
But they should have a link, shouldn't they? And if you can't define
a link between them, then what good is just one little avenue of
change going to do for an overall theory? Of course that's just
another theory, that God made the ingredients to begin with, and just
let them play out.
CJ
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
>
> --
> Bushism 1-24:
> "The public education system in America is one of the most important
> foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from
> all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have
> the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic
> society."
> --Santa Clara, California; May 1, 2002- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b6ca19a2-a287-44c0...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 12 Dec, 14:47, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>
> >> You have to ask? The EVIDENCE for evolution supports people's view.
> >> There
> >> is NO EVIDENCE for a magical fantastical creation. You are totally
> >> unaware
> >> of the evidence because you were either home schooled or slept through
> >> classes. You apparently don't read the newspaper or watch TV either.
> > Everything points to a Supreme Engineer.
>
> What is everything? What scientific evidence or proof are you speaking of?
>
components in the watch work or even be a watch. Evolution thinks
that a component will come about when 'it needs to', but evidence or
logic would show that 'it has to already be there' for it to be
functional. So really creationism is the only answer to the
religious evolution myth scenario. We don't need to see the radio
wave or experience it moving about or even doing it's thing, all we
need to hear is the music and believe.
> Einstein spoke of the
>
> > massive intelligence in nature, and he was a numbers man.
>
> Einstein never claimed a magical sky daddy created the universe.
>
If he didn't he surely would have been pressed to wonder how the
intelligence he speaks of in the universe came about. I guess he
believe in blind luck, eh?
> You only
>
> > sight people's views for your reason for evolution. If you thought
> > for awhile you would form different opinions if you didn't have those
> > opinions driven down your throat. People didn't even think of
> > evolution til 150 years ago.
>
> Because the evidence for evolution came to light at that time. Before then
> they knew no better. There was no rational scientific explanation before
> then. But there were always men who rejected the supernatural silliness of
> a petty self centered killer god creating everything.
>
And there still isn't a rational, scientific explanation. The
pyramidists would be laughing you out of the schools.
> They were intelligent enough to many
>
> > magnificent things like build Pyramids and things, but they always
> > attributed life to something higher than themselves.
>
> Because they knew no better at the time. The gods and goddesses and demons
> filled the GAPS they had no answers for. You should have learned this long
> ago.
>
But they were mathmatically successful so they had logic, and should
have been able to think for themselves, but you accuse them of
believing 'beyond' when they could have been looking 'around'. The
'around' didn't stimulate their thinking.
>
>
> >> No, you need to better educate yourself. He can type you a 100 KB post
> >> and
> >> you will still reject the evidence. Why should he or anyone else bother?
> > You need to define education.
>
> You need to read the information you ask for instead of beating around the
> bushes day after day.
>
I am very strict with my wordage, and all I get from you is
generalizations and assumptions.
> Because something is in a course
>
> > schedule or is written in magazines is not compelling unless you can
> > answer the basic questions of life which you still avoid and can't.
> > Just say something profound, we are all waiting.
>
> They have been answered repeatedly for you. But like an idiot or
> Alzheimer's sufferer you keep asking for the same information. Here it is
> agin. Start reading:
>
It's just like Adam and Eve, they bought into the big LIE that they
would be able 'to see' and 'become like God'. Evolutionists claim the
saw and see, but still they can't articulate within themselves paltry
little sayings that would support their view or make creationism and
obsolete theory.
CJ
>
>
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
>
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_
> >> >> 1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.htmlhttp://www.talkorig...
>
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.htmlhttp://www.talkorigin...
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
> >> >> >>http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.htmlhttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/as...
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
> >> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH370.html-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1cadc536-8a6b-417b...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Who the hell even pays any attention to anything Walt Brown says
> > anymore. He was a has-been ten years ago. (shrug)
>
> <snip sig>
>
> Everyone who really, really, really wants the world to be only 6000
> years old, are extremely good at rationalization and poor at
> introspection.
>
That's just one theory. We believe the earth to be billions of years
old as geology is probably correct without having any tampering of
radiation to make the theorem for dating tainted.
CJ
curtjester1
Really there are enough scenarios that anyone can make up to have
change the only reason for the advancement of life hard to answer. I
do agree with one poster that he must have been drunk for one of his
assertations..-:)
CJ
TomS
<d5354d30-8a4c-4008...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, curtjester1
stated..."
[...snip...]
>the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly, the
>name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
Actually, the name "Jehovah" is nothing more than a misunderstanding.
It doesn't mean anything.
Take a look at the Wikipedia article "Jehovah" for an explanation of the
origins of this word.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 12 Dec, 21:01, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> > >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>
> > >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
> > >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
> > >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>
> > > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
> > > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>
> > Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
> > It does not deal with the first cause.
>
> Oh it does, and why shouldn't 'it' go further?
Because it's a different branch of science.
> First cause should be
> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
As life on this planet orginiated 3,500 million years ago when the
conditions were radically different from today, why should we see it
everywhere?
> Interestingly, the
> name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
Oh, please! Spare us the junk etymology!
> Like I say,
> evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> contestings.
Say whatever you want, but that only accentuates your utter ignorance
of evolutionary theory.
> That is a narrow parameter to only consider.
Just as well that biologists consider rather more than that, isn't it?
> There
> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> so that they can 'improve'.
Have you ever read any book or scientific source on evolutionary
biology? Or do you think that you can form a coherent argument by
making it up as you go along?
> Again evolution is basically a
> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
Tell you what: Try learning about it. It won't make you any less
stupid, but it might leave you better informed.
> After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
So it's just as well that science doesn't work in the way you imagine
it to, isn't it?
>
> > >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> > >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> > >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> > > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> > It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> > look at the evidence.
>
> It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
Funny, but the evolutionary biologist who study the subject seem clear
about what it means, and the fact that we can observe it in action
means that it's a fact that it happens.
> And proving change
> does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate creationism from being
> considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
Well, no. But to be considered in the equation creationism has to
offer rather more than "God did it", or "everything in the bible is
true regardless of the evidence".
>
> > >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> > >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> > >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> > >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> > > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> > So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> > created out of dirt by a god.
>
> Show a brain evolving. Just because one can't pinpoint an event in
> history doesn't mean it couldn't of happened.
Well no, but relying on second and third hand, heavily rewritten,
translated under the control of political and religious vested
interests accounts is not very reliable.
We have an excellent series of fossils of creatures recognisably
closer to humans than to other apes which show a progressive increase
in cranial capacity. Palaeontologists interpret this as evidence for
the evolution of the human brain. How do *you* interpret this
evidence?
>
> > >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> > >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> > >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> > >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> > >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> > > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> > > nature operates and always has.
>
> > It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
> But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> do.
Why is it the business of others to educate you?
>
> > >> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
> > >> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
> > >> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>
> > >> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
> > >> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
> > >> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
> > >> can all be found here:
>
> > > That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
>
> > According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
> > I'm going to point you to it.
>
> Like I said, I am not going to pore through websites when basically I
> see Science shows on TV that make the same probable assertions.
I'd caution you that the science they show on TV shows is not very
reliable. There are far better sources of information. Scientists
publish their findings in academic journals, not as TV documentaries.
> They
> lack proof but are good on showing what they feel as fact.
>
> > > The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
> > > creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
> > > making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
>
> > No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
> > science hasn't already answered.
>
> > >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it. They might say the clitoris was
> formerly a penis.
They'd be wrong if they did.
> Or they might say the clitoris was just a way
> nature has to turn itself so humans could multiply faster. See how
> scenarios are a dime a dozen? Why not say God created a clitoris for
> sexual pleasure?
Say what you like, but don't claim that this has anything to do with
science.
Science attempts to find the best testable explanations for phenomena
which can be observed and measured. If you don't like the
explanations, feel free to reinterpret the evidence as you want, but
unless your explanation can be tested using the tools of science, it
ain't science.
>
> > > These are just opinions,
>
> > Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
>
> Science is just another one of those words like evolution that really
> means knowledge, like evolution means change.
It's a term which has come to mean a very specific way of acquiring
knowledge. That's why there are people called "scientists" who use the
tools of science to investigate the way the universe functions. They
know what they are doing and how they are doing it.
> Unless you realize
> this, one is going to be easily deluded into thinking that is
> 'factual' or 'bona fide'.
>
> > > and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
> > > things.
>
> > Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
> > from the lies creationists have taught you.
>
> We already know that there are over a 100 definitions of evolution and
> creationism in just theory alone.
There are? Where?
> We don't need to be deluded that
> one little sector like yourself has all the secrets. You are
> beginning to sound like a golf teacher.
If you are not going to rely on people who call themselves scientists
working in a discipline which they and other people recognise as
science using tools which are called scientific to inform you on
matters which are known as science, who *would* you rely on?
Greengrocers?
Mime artists?
Pentecostal preachers?
Cabinet ministers?
>
> > > Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
> > > to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
> > > a cell.
>
> > Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
> > came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
>
> I posed that, under unchaotic laboratory conditions where brains have
> supposedly been refined over and over one could make life happen at a
> whim or with the best ingredients and possible catalysts known on this
> earth for a little exhibition. But no, the massively chaotic world
> wins out again. Not too good for the proof category, is it?
It's utter nonsense.
>
> > > If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
> > > has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
> > > at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
>
> > Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
> > Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
> > read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
> > Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
>
> But they should have a link, shouldn't they?
They do. They are both aspects of biological science. That does not
make them the same discipline.
> And if you can't define
> a link between them, then what good is just one little avenue of
> change going to do for an overall theory? Of course that's just
> another theory, that God made the ingredients to begin with, and just
> let them play out.
Fine. But such a belief cannot be investigated using the tools of
science.
RF
curtjester1
> "On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
> [...snip...]>the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly, the
> >name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Actually, the name "Jehovah" is nothing more than a misunderstanding.
> It doesn't mean anything.
>
> Take a look at the Wikipedia article "Jehovah" for an explanation of the
> origins of this word.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
> attributed to Josh Billings
Then Hallelujah doesn't mean anything. Then all the people in the
Bible who are derivatives of Jehovah doesn't meaning anything, like
Jesus. And Wikipedia is the source for all truth - Josh Billings.
CJ
SeppoP
Must be tough...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
TomS
<1fd68d99-369c-4d97...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, curtjester1
stated..."
About as much reason for claiming a meaning for "Jebediah".
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<d5354d30-8a4c-4008...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
> On 12 Dec, 21:01, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
>> >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>>
>> >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
>> >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
>> >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>>
>> > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
>> > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>>
>> Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
>> It does not deal with the first cause.
>>
> Oh it does,
False.
> and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
"First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
think it came about.
> Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
<sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
> Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
it's a word that has a definition?
> After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
No, you're confusing science with religion.
>> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
>> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>>
>> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
>> look at the evidence.
>>
> It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
too long.
> And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> >> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
>> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>>
>> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
>> created out of dirt by a god.
>>
> Show a brain evolving.
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
> Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
> couldn't of happened.
No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
>> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
>> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
>> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>>
>> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>>
>> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
>> > nature operates and always has.
>>
>> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>>
> But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> do.
Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
science is verifiable.
>> >> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
>> >> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
>> >> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>>
>> >> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
>> >> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
>> >> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
>> >> can all be found here:
>>
>> > That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
>>
>> According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
>> I'm going to point you to it.
>>
> Like I said, I am not going to pore through websites when basically I
> see Science shows on TV that make the same probable assertions. They
> lack proof but are good on showing what they feel as fact.
The website I pointed you to has specific answers to the very questions
you were asking. I can't help you if you're too lazy to read it.
>> > The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
>> > creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
>> > making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
>>
>> No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
>> science hasn't already answered.
>>
>> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>>
> Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it.
And they are very successful.
> They might say the clitoris was formerly a penis.
But they don't.
> Or they might say the clitoris was just a way nature has to turn
> itself so humans could multiply faster.
No, I don't think they would spout meaningless gibberish.
> See how scenarios are a dime a dozen?
Maybe your scenarios are, but actual scientific ones are based on facts.
> Why not say God created a clitoris for sexual pleasure?
Because it explains nothing and gives no useful information. If
you're going to answer everything with "God did it," then why have
science at all?
>> > These are just opinions,
>>
>> Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
>>
> Science is just another one of those words like evolution that really
> means knowledge, like evolution means change.
Well, duh!
> Unless you realize this, one is going to be easily deluded into
> thinking that is 'factual' or 'bona fide'.
Science deals with facts and observable phenomena. God is neither.
>> > and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
>> > things.
>>
>> Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
>> from the lies creationists have taught you.
>>
> We already know that there are over a 100 definitions of evolution and
> creationism in just theory alone.
You may be right about creationism, but the only other definitions of
evolution were invented by creationists who don't understand what
evolution is.
> We don't need to be deluded that one little sector like yourself has
> all the secrets. You are beginning to sound like a golf teacher.
I never said that science has all the answers, and only a dishonest
creationist would claim someone said it did.
>> > Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
>> > to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
>> > a cell.
>>
>> Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
>> came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
>>
> I posed that, under unchaotic laboratory conditions where brains have
> supposedly been refined over and over one could make life happen at a
> whim or with the best ingredients and possible catalysts known on this
> earth for a little exhibition. But no, the massively chaotic world
> wins out again. Not too good for the proof category, is it?
The "proof" is that life exists. Once life started to exist, evolution
took over from there.
>> > If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
>> > has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
>> > at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
>>
>> Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
>> Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
>> read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
>> Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
>>
> But they should have a link, shouldn't they?
What sort of a "link" do you have in mind? Evolution is merely change.
Abiogenesis is the start of life. Science doesn't know how life started.
It does know how the different species of plants and animals came
about after life started.
> And if you can't define a link between them, then what good is just
> one little avenue of change going to do for an overall theory?
What do you mean, what "good" is it? Evolution just is, no matter what
"good" it does.
> Of course that's just another theory, that God made the ingredients to
> begin with, and just let them play out.
That's a theory of abiogenesis, not evolution.
--
Bushism 7-5:
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each
other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
--Milwaukee, Wisconsin; October 3, 2003
wf3h
>>
> Oh it does, and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly, the
> name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
> evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
> After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
why is evolution meaningless? since darwin proposed a testable
mechanism (differential reproduction), the concept isn't meaningless
at all.
>
> > >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> > >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> > >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> > > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> > It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> > look at the evidence.
>
> It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'. And proving change
> does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate creationism from being
> considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
since creationism is equal to magic, it's untestable.
>
> Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it. They might say the clitoris was
> formerly a penis. Or they might say the clitoris was just a way
> nature has to turn itself so humans could multiply faster. See how
> scenarios are a dime a dozen? Why not say God created a clitoris for
> sexual pleasure?
you got a 'god meter' i can use to test god? how he did it?
because we can test natural selection. god is untestable
curtjester1
> "On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:21:59 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 13 Dec, 10:28, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), in article
> >><d5354d30-8a4c-4008-89f9-6995f4da8...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, curtjester1
> >> stated..."
> >>[...snip...]>the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly,
> >>the
> >> >name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
>
> >> [...snip...]
>
> >> Actually, the name "Jehovah" is nothing more than a misunderstanding.
> >> It doesn't mean anything.
>
> >> Take a look at the Wikipedia article "Jehovah" for an explanation of the
> >> origins of this word.
>
> >> --
> >> ---Tom S.
> >> "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
> >> attributed to Josh Billings
>
> >Then Hallelujah doesn't mean anything. Then all the people in the
> >Bible who are derivatives of Jehovah doesn't meaning anything, like
> >Jesus. And Wikipedia is the source for all truth - Josh Billings.
>
> About as much reason for claiming a meaning for "Jebediah".
>
SZARBRNACALA. Obviously if one who starts a model prayer, Our Father
Whoart in heaven, HALLOWED be thy name...and see it revered constantly
through many other Bible writers of his time....it must have
importance, and if important it has meaning behind that importance.
CJ
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
> attributed to Josh Billings- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:d5354d30-8a4c-4008...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Dec, 21:01, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> >> >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>
> >> >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
> >> >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
> >> >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>
> >> > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
> >> > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>
> >> Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
> >> It does not deal with the first cause.
>
> > Oh it does,
>
> False.
>
of all life detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
necessity on The Change Theory's part.
> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> think it came about.
>
Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>
> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>
> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>
> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> it's a word that has a definition?
>
Ooops I misspelled enamored.
I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
Of course it has no definition. It's one that has subjective
attempted meanings by opining people. If they could just use the word
change and eliminate evolution well it would be more concise, but it
would through their whole equilibriums off.
> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> No, you're confusing science with religion.
> No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing religions.
> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> >> look at the evidence.
>
> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>
> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
> too long.
>
I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
very young too.
> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.htmlhttp://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
> > couldn't of happened.
>
> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>
But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
support what they think might be a theory.
> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> >> > nature operates and always has.
>
> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> > do.
>
> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
> science is verifiable.
>
More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
> >> >> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
> >> >> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>
> >> >> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
> >> >> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
> >> >> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
> >> >> can all be found here:
>
> >> > That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
>
> >> According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
> >> I'm going to point you to it.
>
> > Like I said, I am not going to pore through websites when basically I
> > see Science shows on TV that make the same probable assertions. They
> > lack proof but are good on showing what they feel as fact.
>
> The website I pointed you to has specific answers to the very questions
> you were asking. I can't help you if you're too lazy to read it.
>
Lazy is imputing a wrong motive. It must be a imperative subject with
lots of arrow signs pointing to it. It is not. Who cares when one
lives only a few years on earth whether one figures change out. Live
life if you think you are going to die at around 70 if you are lucky.
What a low entertainment level.
> >> > The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
> >> > creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
> >> > making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
>
> >> No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
> >> science hasn't already answered.
>
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> > Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it.
>
> And they are very successful.
>
Keep a stiff upper lip.
> > They might say the clitoris was formerly a penis.
>
> But they don't.
>
Some do.
> > Or they might say the clitoris was just a way nature has to turn
> > itself so humans could multiply faster.
>
> No, I don't think they would spout meaningless gibberish.
>
They OFTEN do.
> > See how scenarios are a dime a dozen?
>
> Maybe your scenarios are, but actual scientific ones are based on facts.
>
> > Why not say God created a clitoris for sexual pleasure?
>
> Because it explains nothing and gives no useful information. If
> you're going to answer everything with "God did it," then why have
> science at all?
>
So why the clit?
> >> > These are just opinions,
>
> >> Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
>
> > Science is just another one of those words like evolution that really
> > means knowledge, like evolution means change.
>
> Well, duh!
>
Very subjective huh, and very general, huh?
> > Unless you realize this, one is going to be easily deluded into
> > thinking that is 'factual' or 'bona fide'.
>
> Science deals with facts and observable phenomena. God is neither.
>
Science deals with attempted observations and is infilltrated with the
imperfect human mind and all its varying motives.
> >> > and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
> >> > things.
>
> >> Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
> >> from the lies creationists have taught you.
>
> > We already know that there are over a 100 definitions of evolution and
> > creationism in just theory alone.
>
> You may be right about creationism, but the only other definitions of
> evolution were invented by creationists who don't understand what
> evolution is.
>
Lots of variety in the change world. Google it sometime. I think
some guy documented the list.
> > We don't need to be deluded that one little sector like yourself has
> > all the secrets. You are beginning to sound like a golf teacher.
>
> I never said that science has all the answers, and only a dishonest
> creationist would claim someone said it did.
>
Maybe science has fewer than you think or would like to think it has.
> >> > Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
> >> > to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
> >> > a cell.
>
> >> Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
> >> came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
>
> > I posed that, under unchaotic laboratory conditions where brains have
> > supposedly been refined over and over one could make life happen at a
> > whim or with the best ingredients and possible catalysts known on this
> > earth for a little exhibition. But no, the massively chaotic world
> > wins out again. Not too good for the proof category, is it?
>
> The "proof" is that life exists. Once life started to exist, evolution
> took over from there.
>
Well that is very mundane, and yet you don't know exactly if evolution
took over from there do you?
> >> > If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
> >> > has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
> >> > at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
>
> >> Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
> >> Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
> >> read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
> >> Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
>
> > But they should have a link, shouldn't they?
>
> What sort of a "link" do you have in mind? Evolution is merely change.
> Abiogenesis is the start of life. Science doesn't know how life started.
> It does know how the different species of plants and animals came
> about after life started.
>
And the start didn't have a change? Sheesh.
> > And if you can't define a link between them, then what good is just
> > one little avenue of change going to do for an overall theory?
>
> What do you mean, what "good" is it? Evolution just is, no matter what
> "good" it does.
>
Good = Complete
> > Of course that's just another theory, that God made the ingredients to
> > begin with, and just let them play out.
>
> That's a theory of abiogenesis, not ...
>
Why couldn't it be of both?
CJ
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Primary AL
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
The scientist who studies evolution is not to be blamed for Evolution
Theory's findings, which might provide fodder for anti God sentiment.
It's the individual who uses the evidence of evolutionary changes, to
prop up and fuel a bitter separation process from troubling Christian
ideas. Some rankle at the mere mention of God. Some sue schools in
which they or their child, make up a minority of one.... in a class of
thirty-nine decidedly tolerant others, for the schools' even
suggesting that there may be meaning to life.
This is Taliban level intolerance. Instead of a philosophy of personal
tolerance, these self proclaimed spiritual victims project personal
toxic reaction to a "God" concept onto others. This vicious cycle of
guilt-projection fuels a highly reactive prejudice propelling an
already guilt ridden personality into a fight or flight process of
absolutist war against any notion primary creative intelligence
whatsoever. This is a surefire formula for reactionary thinking,
resulting ironically, in yet another erroneous dogmatic doctrinal
development.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would say that students would miror the sector of adult society that
have majority believing in God.
The real issue is whether a Change Theory should be segrated from all
other theories. One would not have to include God in advancing a
theory either, and could just make a more benign Maker Theory if
included. Really that is what is more relevant from society anyway, a
mixture and many of them of the two theories.
That being said, why waste school time on something that is so
contoversial? One could have such discussions in a club after
school. I would be inclined to like and accept that just like I would
not prayer in school for the fact of differnt gods and different
religions alone.
CJ
Free Lunch
Primary AL <aaver...@gmail.com> wrote in
<99cfd015-1e1d-4973...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
...
As far as I can tell, the only people who claim that evolution causes
anti-god sentiment are radical religious zealots. Can you point to any
others who claim this?
>It's the individual who uses the evidence of evolutionary changes, to
>prop up and fuel a bitter separation process from troubling Christian
>ideas. Some rankle at the mere mention of God.
In the United States the government is forbidden to support any
religions. Deal with it.
>Some sue schools in
>which they or their child, make up a minority of one.... in a class of
>thirty-nine decidedly tolerant others, for the schools' even
>suggesting that there may be meaning to life.
But, of course, teaching about evolution says nothing about the meaning
of life. Once again, you falsely conflate two unrelated ideas and use
the one to attack the other.
>This is Taliban level intolerance.
On your part.
>Instead of a philosophy of personal
>tolerance, these self proclaimed spiritual victims project personal
>toxic reaction to a "God" concept onto others.
Nonsense. Once again, you misrepresent the discussion and claim victory
only through your dishonesty.
>This vicious cycle of
>guilt-projection fuels a highly reactive prejudice propelling an
>already guilt ridden personality into a fight or flight process of
>absolutist war against any notion primary creative intelligence
>whatsoever. This is a surefire formula for reactionary thinking,
>resulting ironically, in yet another erroneous dogmatic doctrinal
>development.
If you were not trying to force your gods onto other people, there would
be no problem. Since US law says that you cannot use our government to
teach your religion, the case is simple. You have to deal with it.
Christopher Denney
[snip]
> ... if important it has meaning behind that importance.
[snip]
Ah, here's the problem, a logical fallacy.
The one does not follow from the other.
The existence of meanings for names have no relationship to the
importance of what is named.
People will frequently GIVE names with meaning to things that are
important to them, but it's a choice, not a requirement.
Ips-Switch
> On 12 Dec, 21:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:916dd6df-543c-4a1f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> >> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
>> >> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
>> >> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
>>
>> That's what YOU claimed!
>>
> That's what a large segment of earth's human population claims.
They claim we evolved in outer space where this god also evolved?
>> We evolved as did all other life on earth.
>>
> Evolved from what?
What do you think? Have you read the sites you were provided? If so you
would already know the answer.
>> Which supreme being of the 10,000 known almighty gods out there? Please
>> provide evidence of this god's existence.
> It doesn't matter who, it matters that it was done. We have proof
> that God has and still does communicate with earthly humans,
Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? We've been through this over
and over again.
and the
> enormity of the Creation is just basic observation that all should be
> able to readily see,
Basic observation and physical evidence are not the same thing. This has
been explained to you repeatedly.
that it is something that is beyond the
> environment alone, or too magnificent to attribute to anything other
> than something much more supreme than human intellect has to offer.
You believe this because you were told to believe it and because you REFUSE
to educate yourself. You prefer ignorance to enlightenment.
>> Because YOU say so? Why should anyone believe you when you have no
>> scientific evidence?
(MAJOR SNIP)
Snip ground already covered many times. You're avoiding the issues and just
repeating yourself.
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<095ddd00-52d1-4cb4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
> On 13 Dec, 12:36, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> <news:d5354d30-8a4c-4008...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 12 Dec, 21:01, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
>> >> >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>>
>> >> >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
>> >> >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
>> >> >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>>
>> >> > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
>> >> > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>>
>> >> Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
>> >> It does not deal with the first cause.
>>
>> > Oh it does,
>>
>> False.
>>
> True, it HAS to.
False, it does not.
> Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> necessity on The Change Theory's part.
You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
>> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>>
>> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
>> think it came about.
>>
> Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
simple fact.
>> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>>
>> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>>
>> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
>> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
>> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
>> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
>> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>>
>> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
>> it's a word that has a definition?
>>
>
> Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>
> I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>
> Of course it has no definition.
False.
> It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
The same can be said for all words.
> If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> off.
Because it would not be precise enough.
>> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>>
>> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> religions.
Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
>> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>>
>> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
>> >> look at the evidence.
>>
>> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>>
>> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
>> too long.
>>
> I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
> very young too.
You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
>> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>>
>> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
>> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
>> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
>> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
>> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
>> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
>> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>>
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
>> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>>
>> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
>> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>>
>> > Show a brain evolving.
>>
>> http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
>> http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>>
> You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
>> > couldn't of happened.
>>
>> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>>
> But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
> certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
> support what they think might be a theory.
Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
you pulled out of your ass?
>> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
>> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
>> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
>> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>>
>> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>>
>> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
>> >> > nature operates and always has.
>>
>> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>>
>> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
>> > do.
>>
>> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
>> science is verifiable.
>>
> More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
I have no need to "opine" since the facts speak for themselves.
>> >> >> > I just get the impression when things can't be proved, evolutionists
>> >> >> > will jump on the 'time is the elixir' for everything, and body
>> >> >> > components can be put in any category anyone deems.
>>
>> >> >> That's because you've been listening to creationist lies about
>> >> >> evolution. Try reading the links I provided you with that nicely
>> >> >> refute every one of the creationist claims about evolution. They
>> >> >> can all be found here:
>>
>> >> > That's nice, but you need to use your own mind and own words.
>>
>> >> According to who? If there's a website that can make my point for me,
>> >> I'm going to point you to it.
>>
>> > Like I said, I am not going to pore through websites when basically I
>> > see Science shows on TV that make the same probable assertions. They
>> > lack proof but are good on showing what they feel as fact.
>>
>> The website I pointed you to has specific answers to the very questions
>> you were asking. I can't help you if you're too lazy to read it.
>>
> Lazy is imputing a wrong motive. It must be a imperative subject with
> lots of arrow signs pointing to it. It is not.
Because you didn't read the links. If you actually wanted to learn the
facts about evolution, you would have followed the links.
> Who cares when one lives only a few years on earth whether one figures
> change out. Live life if you think you are going to die at around 70
> if you are lucky. What a low entertainment level.
Sure, why waste life trying to learn things? Why make discoveries that
will make life better both for yourself and future generations?
>> >> > The sites I have (and no way endorse) are just a smidgen of what
>> >> > creationists can come up with that evolutionists have a difficult time
>> >> > making a definitive answer...chicken or the egg?..e.g.
>>
>> >> No creationist has ever come up with questions about evolution that
>> >> science hasn't already answered.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>>
>> > Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it.
>>
>> And they are very successful.
>>
> Keep a stiff upper lip.
No need.
>> > They might say the clitoris was formerly a penis.
>>
>> But they don't.
>>
> Some do.
Who? If they did, they're wrong.
>> > Or they might say the clitoris was just a way nature has to turn
>> > itself so humans could multiply faster.
>>
>> No, I don't think they would spout meaningless gibberish.
>>
> They OFTEN do.
No, you're confusing facts you don't understand with meaningless gibberish.
>> > See how scenarios are a dime a dozen?
>>
>> Maybe your scenarios are, but actual scientific ones are based on facts.
>>
>> > Why not say God created a clitoris for sexual pleasure?
>>
>> Because it explains nothing and gives no useful information. If
>> you're going to answer everything with "God did it," then why have
>> science at all?
>>
> So why the clit?
Read a science book, maybe you'll find out.
>> >> > These are just opinions,
>>
>> >> Wrong again. They are scientific facts.
>>
>> > Science is just another one of those words like evolution that really
>> > means knowledge, like evolution means change.
>>
>> Well, duh!
>>
> Very subjective huh, and very general, huh?
No, huh, not really, huh. Only for lay people who don't know what
they're talking about.
>> > Unless you realize this, one is going to be easily deluded into
>> > thinking that is 'factual' or 'bona fide'.
>>
>> Science deals with facts and observable phenomena. God is neither.
>>
> Science deals with attempted observations and is infilltrated with the
> imperfect human mind and all its varying motives.
Which is why science constantly tests and retests their observations.
They throw out what doesn't work and keep what does. Religion, on the
other hand, has a strict dogma that must be adhered to no matter if it
works or not.
>> >> > and I am just interested in how God could or couldn't have done
>> >> > things.
>>
>> >> Because you have no desire to learn what evolution actually is apart
>> >> from the lies creationists have taught you.
>>
>> > We already know that there are over a 100 definitions of evolution and
>> > creationism in just theory alone.
>>
>> You may be right about creationism, but the only other definitions of
>> evolution were invented by creationists who don't understand what
>> evolution is.
>>
> Lots of variety in the change world. Google it sometime. I think
> some guy documented the list.
Yes, evolution produces a lot of change. But there's only one definition
of evolution as used by biologists.
>> > We don't need to be deluded that one little sector like yourself has
>> > all the secrets. You are beginning to sound like a golf teacher.
>>
>> I never said that science has all the answers, and only a dishonest
>> creationist would claim someone said it did.
>>
> Maybe science has fewer than you think or would like to think it has.
However, the Theory of Evolution has withstood the test of time and
constant questioning. So far it has not been proven wrong.
>> >> > Again it's obvious that life is too complex to have even the smallest
>> >> > to be accidently in chaotic conditions brought about like bacteria, or
>> >> > a cell.
>>
>> >> Arguments from incredulity refute nothing. And if you think everything
>> >> came "accidentally" from "chaos," you know nothing about evolution.
>>
>> > I posed that, under unchaotic laboratory conditions where brains have
>> > supposedly been refined over and over one could make life happen at a
>> > whim or with the best ingredients and possible catalysts known on this
>> > earth for a little exhibition. But no, the massively chaotic world
>> > wins out again. Not too good for the proof category, is it?
>>
>> The "proof" is that life exists. Once life started to exist, evolution
>> took over from there.
>>
> Well that is very mundane, and yet you don't know exactly if evolution
> took over from there do you?
Actually, it did. The proof is the many different varieties of life
on the planet.
>> >> > If it can't be done in prime laboratory conditions where 'evolution'
>> >> > has reached the apex and can trap earths ingredients and confine them
>> >> > at whim, then the chaotic earth doesn't stand much of a chance does it?
>>
>> >> Again, you're talking about the start of life, not the evolution of life.
>> >> Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely separate things. If you had
>> >> read my links, you would have noticed that one of them even said that
>> >> Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis.
>>
>> > But they should have a link, shouldn't they?
>>
>> What sort of a "link" do you have in mind? Evolution is merely change.
>> Abiogenesis is the start of life. Science doesn't know how life started.
>> It does know how the different species of plants and animals came
>> about after life started.
>>
> And the start didn't have a change? Sheesh.
What are you talking about? Of course life changed after it started.
>> > And if you can't define a link between them, then what good is just
>> > one little avenue of change going to do for an overall theory?
>>
>> What do you mean, what "good" is it? Evolution just is, no matter what
>> "good" it does.
>>
> Good = Complete
Then I'm afraid you'll have an awfully long wait. Nothing, not even
creationism is complete. However, the Theory of Evolution comes the
closest to describing observable facts.
>> > Of course that's just another theory, that God made the ingredients to
>> > begin with, and just let them play out.
>>
>> That's a theory of abiogenesis, not ...
>>
> Why couldn't it be of both?
Because evolution doesn't describe how life started as I've said before.
--
Funny Lurlean quote #31:
"When old Steve got yours I doubt if you even hung the bloody sheet out
the window to prove to all of your neighbors that you were still a virgin."
Ips-Switch
> On 12 Dec, 21:47, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is everything? What scientific evidence or proof are you speaking
>> of?
> It's like a watch. You need each component to make the other
> components in the watch work or even be a watch. Evolution thinks
> that a component will come about when 'it needs to', but evidence or
> logic would show that 'it has to already be there' for it to be
> functional.
You're wasting my time. You still haven't read the information given to you.
All you do is repeat yourself and learn nothing.
So really creationism is the only answer to the
> religious evolution myth scenario. We don't need to see the radio
> wave or experience it moving about or even doing it's thing, all we
> need to hear is the music and believe.
There is a known point (the radio station) where the radio wave comes from.
Again you compare shoes to puppies. There is no evidence for your magical
god/gods/demons. SHOW us some physical evidence!
>>
>> Einstein never claimed a magical sky daddy created the universe.
> If he didn't he surely would have been pressed to wonder how the
> intelligence he speaks of in the universe came about. I guess he
> believe in blind luck, eh?
No, he believed in evolution. You keep confusing evolution with the start
of life in the oceans. Why do you refuse to educate yourself?
>> Because the evidence for evolution came to light at that time. Before
>> then
>> they knew no better. There was no rational scientific explanation before
>> then. But there were always men who rejected the supernatural silliness
>> of
>> a petty self centered killer god creating everything.
> And there still isn't a rational, scientific explanation.
Because your sky daddy doesn't exist. None of the 10,000 known gods exist.
If they did the proof, the evidence would be there.
The
> pyramidists would be laughing you out of the schools.
Why do you refuse to educate yourself when the information is there?
>>
>> Because they knew no better at the time. The gods and goddesses and
>> demons
>> filled the GAPS they had no answers for. You should have learned this
>> long
>> ago.
> But they were mathmatically successful so they had logic, and should
> have been able to think for themselves,
Which many did and refused to believe in or worship the non existent gods
and demons. :-)
but you accuse them of
> believing 'beyond' when they could have been looking 'around'. The
> 'around' didn't stimulate their thinking.
Whatever that means..........
>>
>> You need to read the information you ask for instead of beating around
>> the
>> bushes day after day.
> I am very strict with my wordage, and all I get from you is
> generalizations and assumptions.
That's all I get from you! You're all hot air who refuses to produce any
physical evidence or proof of the gods/demons.
>> They have been answered repeatedly for you. But like an idiot or
>> Alzheimer's sufferer you keep asking for the same information. Here it
>> is
>> agin. Start reading:
> It's just like Adam and Eve,
These people did not exist unless they were the first genetic step, branch
off the ape tree.
they bought into the big LIE that they
> would be able 'to see' and 'become like God'.
They wouldn't even know what a god was no less understood human speech.
These are mythical people, nothing more. They were created in the minds of
the scroll writers to fill a GAP - that was all.
Evolutionists claim the
> saw and see, but still they can't articulate within themselves paltry
> little sayings that would support their view or make creationism and
> obsolete theory.
Creationism is religion, not science.
Why haven't you educated yourself with the sites below?
Primary AL
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:37:30 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <99cfd015-1e1d-4973-9fdd-66fa6995e...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
I sorry is dishonesty a bad thing? I thought we were all through with
this morals and values thing. You know, freedom? Machiavelli lives!No
God no rules. Everything is from random.
Oh, I'm sorry you say you have steadfast values? Thats because the
religion which caused you such harm has it's positive residual
effects. But, lets keep that kind of nonsense out of the schools. Kids
can learn morality somewhere else, like the internet, or in their
buddies basement or at a hocky game....
No wonder 12 year olds are raping and murdering 9 year olds, and
school dropout is @ 75% in michigs. Those kids are too smart to fall
for that faith and ethic stuff.
The joyful, meaning filled theory of evolution has trumped a loving
God.
Merry X-mas with an X.
>
> >This vicious cycle of
> >guilt-projection fuels a highly reactive prejudice propelling an
> >already guilt ridden personality into a fight or flight process of
> >absolutist war against any notion primary creative intelligence
> >whatsoever. This is a surefire formula for reactionary thinking,
> >resulting ironically, in yet another erroneous dogmatic doctrinal
> >development.
>
> If you were not trying to force your gods onto other people, there would
> be no problem. Since US law says that you cannot use our government to
> teach your religion, the case is simple. You have to deal with it.
Dealing with it. When you take something from someone with legal
force you must replace the positive aspects of that which you have
taken. I have seen no replacement of any value.
DärFläken
"Primary AL" <aaver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4893b58-d4e4-4800...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The joyful, meaning filled theory of evolution has trumped a loving
> God.
A loving god who drowned thousands of people? A god would rather see his
children all suffer and die rather than forgive Eve for being tricked and
beguiled? There is nothing loving about your serial killing mass murdering
god.
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d58459d7-ce33-446d...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 12 Dec, 21:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:916dd6df-543c-4a1f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> >> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources other
> >> >> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
> >> >> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
>
> >> That's what YOU claimed!
>
> > That's what a large segment of earth's human population claims.
>
> They claim we evolved in outer space where this god also evolved?
>
entity that is instrumental in earths affairs.
> >> We evolved as did all other life on earth.
>
> > Evolved from what?
>
> What do you think? Have you read the sites you were provided? If so you
> would already know the answer.
>
A one word or two word answer would have done, or maybe a little
phrase. You can't reguritate your site crutch?
> >> Which supreme being of the 10,000 known almighty gods out there? Please
> >> provide evidence of this god's existence.
> > It doesn't matter who, it matters that it was done. We have proof
> > that God has and still does communicate with earthly humans,
>
> Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? We've been through this over
> and over again.
>
The Bible and nature proves itself over and over. I am sure you need
something like the silverspaceship taking you away so you can have one
on one conversation for your proof. People still don't believe that
the radio plays the music because they can't see the radio wave.
> and the
>
> > enormity of the Creation is just basic observation that all should be
> > able to readily see,
>
> Basic observation and physical evidence are not the same thing. This has
> been explained to you repeatedly.
>
Evidence for what? Your 'court case' for validity? You think
evidence has to be gathered in a certain way, like you need to prove a
formula for a chemical reaction. You don't really need a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows.
> that it is something that is beyond the
>
> > environment alone, or too magnificent to attribute to anything other
> > than something much more supreme than human intellect has to offer.
>
> You believe this because you were told to believe it and because you REFUSE
> to educate yourself. You prefer ignorance to enlightenment.
>
UNguilty as charged. There is no evidence that a personality did not
have influence in the construction of the earth or its life
formations. You have had numerous opportunities to enlighten, and all
you hold as 'these self-evident truths', if I might borrow a popular
political phrase, is these sites. I need something that doesn't have
a conflict of interest, one that divorces personality and any
potential personality from making observations dogma.
> >> Because YOU say so? Why should anyone believe you when you have no
> >> scientific evidence?
>
> (MAJOR SNIP)
>
I like these DRAMATIC little blackboard swipes. Are you for real?
> Snip ground already covered many times. You're avoiding the issues and just
> repeating yourself.
Name one thing that has promoted life on this earth?
CJ
curtjester1
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:39:08 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:095ddd00-52d1-4cb4...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and
say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
> > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>
> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>
You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
the side, and make a general ad hominem. Your simple little statement
needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
huff and puff.
> >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> >> think it came about.
>
> > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>
> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> simple fact.
>
How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>
>
>
>
> >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>
> >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>
> >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>
> >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> >> it's a word that has a definition?
>
> > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>
> > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>
> > Of course it has no definition.
>
> False.
>
Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
> > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>
> The same can be said for all words.
>
Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean. The
theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
> > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> > off.
>
> Because it would not be precise enough.
>
Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
> >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> > religions.
>
> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
Evolution doesn't want to be a religion, but when it comes to the
subjective definition it presents, and follows a pattern of lifestyle
which opines about God or creation, then it is just another religion
(lifestyle) that is present in world societies.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> >> >> look at the evidence.
>
> >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>
> >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
> >> too long.
>
> > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
> > very young too.
>
> You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>
Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
> >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>
Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> >> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
> >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
> > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>
> You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>
How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
don't even use 5% of our brains now. It has so much storage
capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
made), that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
> >> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
> >> > couldn't of happened.
>
> >> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>
> > But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
> > certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
> > support what they think might be a theory.
>
> Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
> you pulled out of your ass?
>
Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
be to pacify their theory.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> >> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> >> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> >> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> >> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> >> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> >> >> > nature operates and always has.
>
> >> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
> >> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> >> > do.
>
> >> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
> >> science is verifiable.
>
> > More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
>
> I have no need to "opine" since the facts speak for themselves.
>
I guess your ego might tell you that you have to have facts to be a
bona fide person, but until you present even the slightest, remotest
scenario how life went from the non-existent to the dreadfully
complicated, then I am afraid you are going to lose an audience.
CJ
Kermit
Why? You assert this, but you offer no reason to think so.
It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>
> > > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> > > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> > > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> > > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>
> > You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> > If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>
> You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> the side, and make a general ad hominem.
We've got a thread going on at this moment on the nature of ad hominem
fallacies. This was not a fallacy of any sort; it wasn't even an
argument. It was simply several true assertions.
> Your simple little statement
> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> huff and puff.
Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
probably exceeds your attention span.
You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>
> > >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> > >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> > >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> > >> think it came about.
>
> > > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>
> > Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> > simple fact.
>
> How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
> many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
> paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
If a house burns down, we know that there may have been one original
fire, or several, or many. There may or not be evidence indicating
which. But one would suffice, yes? Just because there are many
possibilities doesn't mean they are all equally likely. And saying one
is sufficient isnot the same as saying there actually was only one. Do
you see the difference?
>
>
>
> > >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>
> > >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>
> > >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> > >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> > >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> > >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> > >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>
> > >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> > >> it's a word that has a definition?
>
> > > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>
> > > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>
> > > Of course it has no definition.
>
> > False.
>
> Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
Biological Evolution has a meaning which is accepted by the scientific
community. To argue against its common technical usage is as silly as
arguing with jazz musicians over the meaning of swing, or with auto
mechanics over the meaning of "tune up".
>
> > > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>
> > The same can be said for all words.
>
> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
field they have a clear meaning.
> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
> The
> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
Mmmm.
I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
for them.
The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>
> > > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> > > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> > > off.
>
> > Because it would not be precise enough.
>
> Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
No, in the biological context, evolution is very specific. It refers
to the distribution of alleles.
"Change" does not have a technical usage in biology, to my knowledge.
What changed - the population size, the ratio of genders, the mating
song, the preferred prey? Those are not (necessarily) evolution.
>
> > >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> > >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> > > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> > > religions.
>
> > Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
> Evolution doesn't want to be a religion, but when it comes to the
> subjective definition it presents, and follows a pattern of lifestyle
> which opines about God or creation, then it is just another religion
> (lifestyle) that is present in world societies.
Evolutionary science says nothing about gods, any more than chemistry
or meteorology or geology do. Nor is it a lifestyle. It is a
scientific field of inquiry.
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> > >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> > >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> > >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> > >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> > >> >> look at the evidence.
>
> > >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>
> > >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
> > >> too long.
>
> > > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
> > > very young too.
>
> > You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>
> Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
> pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
> accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
> Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
OK, I wasn't going to say anything about your grammar, but now I have
to ask: what language did you publish in?
"Opine", for example, is a verb.
>
> > >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> > >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> > >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> > >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> > >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> > >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> > >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> > >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> > >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
> > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> > Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>
> Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
So, you are unimpressed by facts? Arguments puzzle you, logic bores
you. Tsk.
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> > >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> > >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> > >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> > >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> > >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> > >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> > >> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> > >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
> > >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
> > > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>
> > You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>
> How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
> don't even use 5% of our brains now.
We use all of our brains, much of the time. It made no sense to think
otherwise 50 years ago, and we can now see in real time every part of
our brains jumping into action as various tasks are performed.
> It has so much storage
> capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
> made),
Why does a storage capacity imply design? And it is nothing like
computers in structure of mechanism, except in the most general terms:
data storage, and data processing.
> that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
> plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
Not at all. Evolution clearly followed a meandering path. There is no
goal, Why don't you talk about cockroaches - what can you "conclude"
from them? They are just as evolved as we.
>
> > >> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
> > >> > couldn't of happened.
>
> > >> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>
> > > But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
> > > certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
> > > support what they think might be a theory.
>
> > Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
> > you pulled out of your ass?
>
> Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
> and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
> be to pacify their theory.
Please provide a cite. Please offer a specific example. I think that
you vaguely remember a creationist strawman built from a misunderstood
rumor derived from a misrepresented reading of Gould's earliest pop
science books.
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> > >> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> > >> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> > >> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> > >> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> > >> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> > >> >> > nature operates and always has.
>
> > >> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
> > >> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> > >> > do.
>
> > >> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
> > >> science is verifiable.
>
> > > More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
>
> > I have no need to "opine" since the facts speak for themselves.
>
> I guess your ego might tell you that you have to have facts to be a
> bona fide person,
No, he just has to have facts to be right when making assertions about
the way the universe works. I suppose you would find them to be a
hindrance.
> but until you present even the slightest, remotest
> scenario how life went from the non-existent to the dreadfully
> complicated, then I am afraid you are going to lose an audience.
<snort>
You aren't an audience. Audiences pay attention. You are the heckler.
Kermit
--
"I am a bear of very little brain, and big words bother me" - Pooh
curtjester1
first cause as being One, and that is somehow another science that
doesn't necessarily connect to 'his' science. I am saying if you
aren't going to connect the two you are somehow lacking and
'unviable'. But since I know that you can't, I don't expect you too,
but I do expect unspecific ways of sidestepping which I have been a
witness to abundantly.
> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
>
Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
theory.
> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>
Once "we had"??!! When did you have? It's like saying that given
situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
theory can now proceed. Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
what is seemingly inevitable.
>
>
> > > > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> > > > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> > > > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> > > > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>
> > > You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> > > If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>
> > You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> > evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> > the side, and make a general ad hominem.
>
> We've got a thread going on at this moment on the nature of ad hominem
> fallacies. This was not a fallacy of any sort; it wasn't even an
> argument. It was simply several true assertions.
>
Well you leave me out of THAT thread. And I have no idea what you are
truly 'asserting'.
> > Your simple little statement
> > needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> > proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> > huff and puff.
>
> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
> probably exceeds your attention span.
>
Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
million scenarios? Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
practical it is, like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
was pushing the little green stalk thing?
> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>
I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
else it could never be viable.
>
>
> > > >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> > > >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> > > >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> > > >> think it came about.
>
> > > > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>
> > > Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> > > simple fact.
>
> > How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
> > many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
> > paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>
> If a house burns down, we know that there may have been one original
> fire, or several, or many. There may or not be evidence indicating
> which. But one would suffice, yes? Just because there are many
> possibilities doesn't mean they are all equally likely. And saying one
> is sufficient isnot the same as saying there actually was only one. Do
> you see the difference?
>
Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
>
>
> > > >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>
> > > >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>
> > > >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> > > >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> > > >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> > > >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> > > >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>
> > > >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> > > >> it's a word that has a definition?
>
> > > > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>
> > > > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>
> > > > Of course it has no definition.
>
> > > False.
>
> > Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
>
> Biological Evolution has a meaning which is accepted by the scientific
> community. To argue against its common technical usage is as silly as
> arguing with jazz musicians over the meaning of swing, or with auto
> mechanics over the meaning of "tune up".
>
The scientific community laughed at Galileo. There's lots of
motivation IMO for finding how life works. Prestige and money and
lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
might even be satanic. Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God. Anyway
to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones soul. I
am sure I am perfectly clear.
>
>
> > > > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>
> > > The same can be said for all words.
>
> > Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> > just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
>
> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
> field they have a clear meaning.
>
I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
> > The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
>
> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
>
Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it. It must
be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
> > That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
>
> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
>
It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
> > The
> > theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>
> Mmmm.
> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
> for them.
> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>
Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
>
>
> > > > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> > > > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> > > > off.
>
> > > Because it would not be precise enough.
>
> > Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>
> No, in the biological context, evolution is very specific. It refers
> to the distribution of alleles.
>
They sound like aliens on Star Trek. You can keep that cool argot to
yourselves.
> "Change" does not have a technical usage in biology, to my knowledge.
> What changed - the population size, the ratio of genders, the mating
> song, the preferred prey? Those are not (necessarily) evolution.
>
And I thought you were talking about life forms when speaking of your
Change Theory. It must have been the Planet Seeders.
>
>
> > > >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> > > >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> > > > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> > > > religions.
>
> > > Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
Back to JC if you admit that it is and is not.
> > Evolution doesn't want to be a religion, but when it comes to the
> > subjective definition it presents, and follows a pattern of lifestyle
> > which opines about God or creation, then it is just another religion
> > (lifestyle) that is present in world societies.
>
> Evolutionary science says nothing about gods, any more than chemistry
> or meteorology or geology do. Nor is it a lifestyle. It is a
> scientific field of inquiry.
>
My watch came by the tooth fairy? I must admit I have plenty of
laughs watching the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet when nature or
the environment takes on 'personality'. They can't admit, but the
romantic language is just too alluring for them. Actually its not
very relevant, since if they could or should, could be injected into
the making of the 'correct formula'. To discount what is observed,
and even conceded by evolutionists that everything seems to be 'well
packaged' should at least have all theories giving some attention to
the possibility at least.
>
>
> > > >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> > > >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> > > >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> > > >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> > > >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> > > >> >> look at the evidence.
>
> > > >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>
> > > >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
> > > >> too long.
>
> > > > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
> > > > very young too.
>
> > > You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>
> > Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
> > pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
> > accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
> > Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
>
> OK, I wasn't going to say anything about your grammar, but now I have
> to ask: what language did you publish in?
> "Opine", for example, is a verb.
>
The dreaded demean. It's either a typo, a syntax observation, or a
misspell, usually, but no we have a noun-verb person here. Verbs are
closely associated in many ways with Nouns. Opine-The Opiner ... to
speak - The speaker. Surely you can do better than this, can't you?
>
>
> > > >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> > > >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> > > >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> > > >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> > > >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> > > >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> > > >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> > > >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> > > >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
> > > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> > > Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>
> > Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>
> So, you are unimpressed by facts? Arguments puzzle you, logic bores
> you. Tsk.
>
No, I am impressed by worthiness. You assume behind door number 1,
that there is tantalizing research and truth. I might be a little
spoiled from other sites I frequent, but I need a little teaser, a
preview if you will that will entice myself to go there. It's like a
movie. I could never view all the movies they put out. It's a
physical impossibility. Should I further my scenario here?
>
>
> > > >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> > > >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> > > >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> > > >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> > > >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> > > >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> > > >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> > > >> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> > > >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
> > > >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
> > > > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>
> > > You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>
> > How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
> > don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>
> We use all of our brains, much of the time. It made no sense to think
> otherwise 50 years ago, and we can now see in real time every part of
> our brains jumping into action as various tasks are performed.
>
Is there any scientific proof that the more facts we take in the
bigger our head gets?
Actually I think my storage thesis is well-supported in the Neuro
community.
> > It has so much storage
> > capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
> > made),
>
> Why does a storage capacity imply design? And it is nothing like
> computers in structure of mechanism, except in the most general terms:
> data storage, and data processing.
>
Well usually there is a nice picturesque vision given to the reason
why something is in the Change World. Certainly with all our billions
and trillions of synopses we can opine just why the evolution god
deemed why would need so many. We don't need a zillion things of
electricity to make something go, why this in the brain?
> > that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
> > plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
>
> Not at all. Evolution clearly followed a meandering path. There is no
> goal, Why don't you talk about cockroaches - what can you "conclude"
> from them? They are just as evolved as we.
>
Or the cockroaches were just put here just like we were put here, all
in our complete naked forms. You aren't going to say were Cockroaches
Uncles are you?
>
>
> > > >> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
> > > >> > couldn't of happened.
>
> > > >> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>
> > > > But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
> > > > certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
> > > > support what they think might be a theory.
>
> > > Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
> > > you pulled out of your ass?
>
> > Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
> > and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
> > be to pacify their theory.
>
> Please provide a cite. Please offer a specific example. I think that
> you vaguely remember a creationist strawman built from a misunderstood
> rumor derived from a misrepresented reading of Gould's earliest pop
> science books.
>
Really I am on the road and bookless, but I have with my hand on a
Bible seen several references from a non-religious scientific
community that refers to the sudden 'happenings' (Faster Change
Theory) to be relevant to support the Slow Change Theory. I bet you
could google that and get a good smattering of Opine on that one.
>
>
> > > >> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
> > > >> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
> > > >> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
> > > >> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>
> > > >> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>
> > > >> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
> > > >> >> > nature operates and always has.
>
> > > >> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>
> > > >> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
> > > >> > do.
>
> > > >> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
> > > >> science is verifiable.
>
> > > > More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
>
> > > I have no need to "opine" since the facts speak for themselves.
>
> > I guess your ego might tell you that you have to have facts to be a
> > bona fide person,
>
> No, he just has to have facts to be right when making assertions about
> the way the universe works. I suppose you would find them to be a
> hindrance.
>
Ahh, The Cheerleader Change Theory that goes to infinity and beyond
(sorry Spuzz). I was just in the sci.physics room recently where
posts go through via the evil hijackers, and the man has written a
book about God being proved as residing in the Universe through
scientific 'formula'. I stated that the universe has always existed
amongs the Einsteins, because Albert himself, proved that matter
cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only change forms). Obviously
if matter has always existed (from this Opiner), then the Universe
most probably always existed since matter would have to seem to have
just changed its form. See, I didn't need a site to go to.
Brilliance at the drop of a hat....-:O
> > but until you present even the slightest, remotest
> > scenario how life went from the non-existent to the dreadfully
> > complicated, then I am afraid you are going to lose an audience.
>
> <snort>
> You aren't an audience. Audiences pay attention. You are the heckler.
>
I have an audience of over a billion people, but not necessarily from
your very highly 'selective' site.
> Kermit
> --
> "I am a bear of very little brain, and big words bother me" - Pooh
"On with the Show, this is it."
CJ
Ernest Major
<87c1b85f-cf8c-47f7...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >> >> >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
>> >> >> >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>>
>> >> >> >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
>> >> >> >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
>> >> >> >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>>
>> >> >> > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
>> >> >> > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>>
>> >> >> Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
>> >> >> It does not deal with the first cause.
>>
>> >> > Oh it does,
>>
>> >> False.
>>
>> > True, it HAS to.
>>
>> False, it does not.
>>
>It has to be a viable theory which it isn't. It's like proving by
>steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and say,
>I can't. You would get an F for that.
The factuality of common descent with modification of known living
terrestrial life through the agency of natural selection and other
processes is independent of how life started - it doesn't matter whether
life on Earth originated by spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, accidental abiogenesis, local
panspermia, spontaneous panspermia, directed panspermia, accidental
panspermia, or some other mechanism.
So, you claim that a theory of evolution has to include a worked out
theory of abiogenesis is fallacious. Your analogy is flawed. Not to
mention your allegedly analogous situation is at best not universally
true in the real world - in tests it is often the practice to give
people partial credit for partial solutions.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>> It has to be a viable theory which it isn't. It's like proving by
>>> steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and
>>> say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
>> Why? You assert this, but you offer no reason to think so.
>>
> Because if you have been following the thread, the Opiner goes into
> first cause as being One, and that is somehow another science that
> doesn't necessarily connect to 'his' science. I am saying if you
> aren't going to connect the two you are somehow lacking and
> 'unviable'.
Why? If one doesn't know how life started, one can still learn a great
deal about how it diversified.
> But since I know that you can't, I don't expect you too,
> but I do expect unspecific ways of sidestepping which I have been a
> witness to abundantly.
There is no "sidestep". Evolution doesn't deal with how life began.
>
>> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
>> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
>> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
>>
> Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
> could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
> theory.
Whether or not evolution is "cool" it's been observed.
>
>
>> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
>> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>>
> Once "we had"??!! When did you have?
According to the evidence, somewhere between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years
ago. Exactly how life began is under investigation, but currently
unknown.
> It's like saying that given
> situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
> theory can now proceed.
Yes, and what's wrong with that? Do you dispute that life began? If
so, why?
> Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
> what is seemingly inevitable.
Once there is life, evolution happens, because life does not reproduce
perfectly. What is "out of bounds" about that?
>
>>
>>>>> Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
>>>>> detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
>>>>> be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
>>>>> necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>>>> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
>>>> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>>> You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
>>> evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
>>> the side, and make a general ad hominem.
>> We've got a thread going on at this moment on the nature of ad hominem
>> fallacies. This was not a fallacy of any sort; it wasn't even an
>> argument. It was simply several true assertions.
>>
> Well you leave me out of THAT thread.
Yeah, why bother to learn anything?
And I have no idea what you are
> truly 'asserting'.
The true assertions above were: "You're very confused." ,"As long as
there is life, evolution applies." and, "If there is no life, there is
no evolution". Does that help you? There were no ad hominems above.
>
>>> Your simple little statement
>>> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
>>> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
>>> huff and puff.
>> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
>> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
>> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
>> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
>> probably exceeds your attention span.
>>
>
> Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
> million scenarios?
In order to learn. Evolution, by the way is not "speculative", or
"subjective".
> Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
> practical it is,
Evolution is very logical, and very practical. But you could learn that
for yourself, rather than depending on my, or anyone else's say so.
> like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
> was pushing the little green stalk thing?
Sorry, this does not parse. What exactly are you talking about? What
does "throught" mean? What "bacteria with a motor"? What "little
green stalk thing"?
>
>> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
>> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
>> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
>> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
>> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
>> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>>
> I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
> is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
> viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
> else it could never be viable.
This is Paley's "argument from design" intermingled with Behe's
"Irreducible Complexity". The mistake is in assuming that evolution can
only add parts to a system, and that all parts have to have the same
function. A watch with missing parts can be useful as something other
than a timepiece. Cells, for example are very complex, but they are
not "irreducibly" so. Eukaryote cells are more complex than bacteria,
which are more complex than the first self replicating life forms, which
were more complex than viruses, etc. etc...
>
>>
>>>>>>> and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
>>>>>>> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>>>>>> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
>>>>>> think it came about.
>>>>> Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>>>> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
>>>> simple fact.
>>> How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
>>> many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
>>> paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>> If a house burns down, we know that there may have been one original
>> fire, or several, or many. There may or not be evidence indicating
>> which. But one would suffice, yes? Just because there are many
>> possibilities doesn't mean they are all equally likely. And saying one
>> is sufficient isnot the same as saying there actually was only one. Do
>> you see the difference?
>>
> Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
Evolution is a viable concept. What part of of it are you not
understanding?
>
>>
>>>>>>> Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>>>>>> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>>>>>>> Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
>>>>>>> contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
>>>>>>> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
>>>>>>> so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
>>>>>>> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>>>>>> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
>>>>>> it's a word that has a definition?
>>>>> Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>>>>> I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>>>>> Of course it has no definition.
>>>> False.
>>> Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
>> Biological Evolution has a meaning which is accepted by the scientific
>> community. To argue against its common technical usage is as silly as
>> arguing with jazz musicians over the meaning of swing, or with auto
>> mechanics over the meaning of "tune up".
>>
> The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
No, at the time of Galileo, there was no "scientific community".
Galielo's opponents were not other scientists as science as a discipline
didn't really exist then. Galileo got into trouble with the Church, for
opposing doctrine, not for producing a new idea of how nature worked.
Furthermore, in order to put on the mantle of Galileo, you have to be
right. As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, and the laughed at
Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just being ridiculed
by scientists doesn't mean you are right.
> There's lots of
> motivation IMO for finding how life works.
Which is why scientists are looking into the concept.
> Prestige and money and
> lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
> might even be satanic.
Sorry, but all science works without considering God, or any other
supernatural being. It's not "satanic" but just how science works.
There is no reason why God can't use the processes that scientists are
studying.
> Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
> hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
Because of the evidence. It would be foolish to believe something is
false when it fits the evidence.
> especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God.
Where do you get the idea that "morality" is unscientific? God as
concept is not unscientific, appeals to the supernatural as an
explanation for natural phenomena is unscientific.
> Anyway
> to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones soul. I
> am sure I am perfectly clear.
Clear as mud.
>
>
>>
>>>>> It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>>>> The same can be said for all words.
>>> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
>>> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
>> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
>> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
>> field they have a clear meaning.
>>
> I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
Irrelevant. Whether or not you understand scientific jargon is not
relevant to whether or not a concept is true.
>
>>> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
>> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
>> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
>> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
>>
> Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it.
Would it kill you to educate yourself for once?
> It must
> be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
An allele is a particular form of a gene. Like hair color, (could be
red, or brown, or blond), or eye color (green, blue, brown, hazel).
Evolution is change in the frequency of a particular type of gene over
generations in a population.
>
>>> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
>> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
>> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
>>
> It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
> Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
> spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
> word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
The word "evolution" before Darwin used it, meant "unfolding", or how
events happen over time. Darwin used it to mean the change of
morphology in a population over time. (Darwin didn't know about genes,
or gene expressions)
>
>>> The
>>> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>> Mmmm.
>> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
>> for them.
>> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
>> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>>
> Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
Which tends to indicate you don't understand how words are used in the
English language.
>
>>
>>>>> If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
>>>>> it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
>>>>> off.
>>>> Because it would not be precise enough.
>>> Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>> No, in the biological context, evolution is very specific. It refers
>> to the distribution of alleles.
>>
> They sound like aliens on Star Trek. You can keep that cool argot to
> yourselves.
Why? Again, and allele is just a particular form of a gene. If you
are going to discuss something, you need to learn something about it.
>
>> "Change" does not have a technical usage in biology, to my knowledge.
>> What changed - the population size, the ratio of genders, the mating
>> song, the preferred prey? Those are not (necessarily) evolution.
>>
> And I thought you were talking about life forms when speaking of your
> Change Theory. It must have been the Planet Seeders.
As Kermit already pointed out, evolution is change in allele frequency,
not general change. Where do "planet seeders" come into this?
>
>>
>>>>>>> After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>>>>>> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>>>>> No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
>>>>> religions.
>>>> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
> Back to JC if you admit that it is and is not.
What does this mean?
>
>>> Evolution doesn't want to be a religion, but when it comes to the
>>> subjective definition it presents, and follows a pattern of lifestyle
>>> which opines about God or creation, then it is just another religion
>>> (lifestyle) that is present in world societies.
>> Evolutionary science says nothing about gods, any more than chemistry
>> or meteorology or geology do. Nor is it a lifestyle. It is a
>> scientific field of inquiry.
>>
> My watch came by the tooth fairy?
Did it? What evidence can you present for this?
> I must admit I have plenty of
> laughs watching the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet when nature or
> the environment takes on 'personality'.
So? It's a common usage in narrative to anthropomorphize processes such
as "nature" or the environment.
> They can't admit, but the
> romantic language is just too alluring for them. Actually its not
> very relevant, since if they could or should, could be injected into
> the making of the 'correct formula'.
Again, this doesn't parse in English. Can you rephrase this?
> To discount what is observed,
> and even conceded by evolutionists that everything seems to be 'well
> packaged' should at least have all theories giving some attention to
> the possibility at least.
The appearance of "well packaged" is produced by natural processes,
because human beings are predisposed to see "packaging". It's how our
brains are wired.
snip
>> OK, I wasn't going to say anything about your grammar, but now I have
>> to ask: what language did you publish in?
>> "Opine", for example, is a verb.
>>
> The dreaded demean. It's either a typo, a syntax observation, or a
> misspell, usually, but no we have a noun-verb person here. Verbs are
> closely associated in many ways with Nouns. Opine-The Opiner ... to
> speak - The speaker. Surely you can do better than this, can't you?
Irrelevant to the discussion. How is it a "demean" to point out that
your use of language is not clear?
snip
>>>> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>>> Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>> So, you are unimpressed by facts? Arguments puzzle you, logic bores
>> you. Tsk.
>>
> No, I am impressed by worthiness.
Unless you can't see the worth of something.
> You assume behind door number 1,
> that there is tantalizing research and truth.
There is a great deal of research and truth to be had.
> I might be a little
> spoiled from other sites I frequent, but I need a little teaser, a
> preview if you will that will entice myself to go there. It's like a
> movie. I could never view all the movies they put out. It's a
> physical impossibility. Should I further my scenario here?
You can never see "all the movies they put out" if you never bother to
go to the theater. Don't expect that all the "movies" will come to you.
snip
>>> How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
>>> don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>> We use all of our brains, much of the time. It made no sense to think
>> otherwise 50 years ago, and we can now see in real time every part of
>> our brains jumping into action as various tasks are performed.
>>
> Is there any scientific proof that the more facts we take in the
> bigger our head gets?
No. And there is no "scientific proof" that humans use only 5% of their
brains.
>
> Actually I think my storage thesis is well-supported in the Neuro
> community.
You can think anything you want. Can you offer any evidence that
anyone in the "Neuro community" agrees with you?
>
>
>
>
>>> It has so much storage
>>> capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
>>> made),
>> Why does a storage capacity imply design? And it is nothing like
>> computers in structure of mechanism, except in the most general terms:
>> data storage, and data processing.
>>
> Well usually there is a nice picturesque vision given to the reason
> why something is in the Change World. Certainly with all our billions
> and trillions of synopses we can opine just why the evolution god
> deemed why would need so many. We don't need a zillion things of
> electricity to make something go, why this in the brain?
Most organisms get by fine without "zillions" of synapses. Humans have
large brains because humans use intelligence as a survival strategy.
Other organisms use other methods.
>
>>> that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
>>> plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
>> Not at all. Evolution clearly followed a meandering path. There is no
>> goal, Why don't you talk about cockroaches - what can you "conclude"
>> from them? They are just as evolved as we.
>>
> Or the cockroaches were just put here just like we were put here, all
> in our complete naked forms.
If, so, we'd not expect to find similarities between humans and all
other living things.
> You aren't going to say were Cockroaches
> Uncles are you?
No, just very distant cousins.
>
>>
>>>>>>> Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
>>>>>>> couldn't of happened.
>>>>>> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>>>>> But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
>>>>> certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
>>>>> support what they think might be a theory.
>>>> Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
>>>> you pulled out of your ass?
>>> Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
>>> and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
>>> be to pacify their theory.
>> Please provide a cite. Please offer a specific example. I think that
>> you vaguely remember a creationist strawman built from a misunderstood
>> rumor derived from a misrepresented reading of Gould's earliest pop
>> science books.
>>
> Really I am on the road and bookless,
Imagine the surprise....
> but I have with my hand on a
> Bible seen several references from a non-religious scientific
> community that refers to the sudden 'happenings' (Faster Change
> Theory) to be relevant to support the Slow Change Theory. I bet you
> could google that and get a good smattering of Opine on that one.
Only if what you said made any kind of sense. What "faster change
theory"? What "sudden happenings"?
snip
>>> I guess your ego might tell you that you have to have facts to be a
>>> bona fide person,
>> No, he just has to have facts to be right when making assertions about
>> the way the universe works. I suppose you would find them to be a
>> hindrance.
>>
> Ahh, The Cheerleader Change Theory that goes to infinity and beyond
> (sorry Spuzz). I was just in the sci.physics room recently where
> posts go through via the evil hijackers, and the man has written a
> book about God being proved as residing in the Universe through
> scientific 'formula'. I stated that the universe has always existed
> amongs the Einsteins, because Albert himself, proved that matter
> cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only change forms). Obviously
> if matter has always existed (from this Opiner), then the Universe
> most probably always existed since matter would have to seem to have
> just changed its form. See, I didn't need a site to go to.
> Brilliance at the drop of a hat....-:O
And like so much of self proclaimed "brilliance" it's a bunch of nonsense.
>
>>> but until you present even the slightest, remotest
>>> scenario how life went from the non-existent to the dreadfully
>>> complicated, then I am afraid you are going to lose an audience.
>> <snort>
>> You aren't an audience. Audiences pay attention. You are the heckler.
>>
> I have an audience of over a billion people, but not necessarily from
> your very highly 'selective' site.
More self delusion.
DJT
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<87c1b85f-cf8c-47f7...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution is viable and has withstood the
test of time with no serious flaws.
> It's like proving by steps the algebraic formula. You get part of
> the way through, and say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
So why do you insist on only learning part of evolutionary theory?
You're already getting an F for comprehension.
>> > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
>> > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
>> > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
>> > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>>
>> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
>> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>>
>
> You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> the side, and make a general ad hominem. Your simple little statement
> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> huff and puff.
You keep saying the same false things over and over no matter how
much I or others explain them to you.
>> >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
>> >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>>
>> >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
>> >> think it came about.
>>
>> > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>>
>> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
>> simple fact.
>>
>
> How do you know "there is no need"?
Because life already exists at that point.
> Such a generalization with so many possibilites and you answer it
> like you grabbed a little piece a paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
That's basically what your understanding of evolution amounts to.
>> >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>>
>> >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>>
>> >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
>> >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
>> >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
>> >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
>> >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>>
>> >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
>> >> it's a word that has a definition?
>>
>> > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>>
>> > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>>
>> > Of course it has no definition.
>>
>> False.
>>
> Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
It's not that it's different from the word change, just that it goes
into more detail. You can find the definition in any dictionary.
>> > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>>
>> The same can be said for all words.
>>
> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean. The
> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
Many words have more than one meaning, but we are discussing the
evolution of living things and the Theory of Evolution.
>> > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
>> > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
>> > off.
>>
>> Because it would not be precise enough.
>>
> Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
Wrong again. It would be less precise.
>> >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>>
>> >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>>
>> > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
>> > religions.
>>
>> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>>
> Evolution doesn't want to be a religion,
Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
> but when it comes to the subjective definition it presents, and
> follows a pattern of lifestyle which opines about God or creation,
> then it is just another religion (lifestyle) that is present in world
> societies.
Except evolution says nothing about any gods or lifestyles. You are
terribly confused if you think it does.
>> >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
>> >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>>
>> >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
>> >> >> look at the evidence.
>>
>> >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>>
>> >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
>> >> too long.
>>
>> > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
>> > very young too.
>>
>> You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>>
> Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
> pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
> accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
> Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
If you're so accomplished, why don't you read what other people say
and comprehend it?
>> >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
>> >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>>
>> >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
>> >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
>> >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
>> >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
>> >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
>> >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
>> >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>>
>> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>>
>> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>>
> Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
But it seems to be necessary when talking to you.
>> >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
>> >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>>
>> >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
>> >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>>
>> >> > Show a brain evolving.
>>
>> >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
>> >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>>
>> > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>>
>> You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>>
> How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved?
Because it has. Ancestors of homo sapiens had a smaller cranial
capacity, indicating smaller, less developed brains.
> We don't even use 5% of our brains now.
You may not, but the rest of us use 100% of our brains.
> It has so much storage capability (a definite sign that it was
> made...just like computers are made), that evolution to be true must
> not only emerge things, it must plan way ahead for the next creature.
> Talk about science fiction.
Wrong again. Evolution does not have to "plan way ahead," it just has
to ensure survivability.
>> >> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
>> >> > couldn't of happened.
>>
>> >> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>>
>> > But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
>> > certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
>> > support what they think might be a theory.
>>
>> Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
>> you pulled out of your ass?
>>
> Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
> and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
> be to pacify their theory.
So in other words, you have no reference. And "evolutionists" don't
get "cornered." At least not by religious nuts like yourself and
Walt Brown who know nothing about how evolution works. Scientists may
find minor problems with the theory from time to time, but they modify
the theory with updated knowledge through testing. The Theory of
Evolution has come under no serious threat in the time it has
existed. And even if in the unlikely event it's proven to be wrong, I
can guarantee you that creationism will not take its place.
>> >> >> >> > Since we don't see that life is going from the simple to the complex
>> >> >> >> > today, or can't be duplicated in the lab where it theoretically should
>> >> >> >> > happen quite easily over chaotic circumstances, then most people
>> >> >> >> > should conclude that evolution is 'hearsay'.
>>
>> >> >> >> Wrong. You don't understand what evolution is.
>>
>> >> >> > No we need it answered, and not assumed that someone 'knows' how
>> >> >> > nature operates and always has.
>>
>> >> >> It has already been answered if you had read my links.
>>
>> >> > But why can't YOU answer it? Just a few pithy, profound tenets would
>> >> > do.
>>
>> >> Why would I need any "tenets?" Evolution is not a belief system. The
>> >> science is verifiable.
>>
>> > More buzzwords and even less profound opining.
>>
>> I have no need to "opine" since the facts speak for themselves.
>>
> I guess your ego might tell you that you have to have facts to be a
> bona fide person, but until you present even the slightest, remotest
> scenario how life went from the non-existent to the dreadfully
> complicated, then I am afraid you are going to lose an audience.
Evolution doesn't need to have an audience other than scientists who
can understand it. Since it is a fact, the only people who think it
needs an audience are religious types who can't comprehend it and
try desperately to deny it because they believe it contradicts their
religious beliefs.
--
Bushism 10-27:
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
--Saginaw, Michigan; September 29, 2000
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<0675d526-1eb3-4185...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
You're only imagining any sidestepping on our part because you lack
comprehension. Evolution explains what it's supposed to. It was
never meant to explain the origin of life itself. That's called
abiogenesis.
>> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
>> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
>> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
>>
> Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
> could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
> theory.
The only problem with that is that we have solid evidence for eons
of evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains how it happened.
>> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
>> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>>
> Once "we had"??!! When did you have? It's like saying that given
> situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
> theory can now proceed. Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
> what is seemingly inevitable.
You're still very confused. You insist on making abiogenesis a part
of evolution. That's like saying you should know how trees grow in
order to be able to build a house.
>> > > > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
>> > > > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
>> > > > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
>> > > > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>>
>> > > You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
>> > > If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>>
>> > You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
>> > evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
>> > the side, and make a general ad hominem.
>>
>> We've got a thread going on at this moment on the nature of ad hominem
>> fallacies. This was not a fallacy of any sort; it wasn't even an
>> argument. It was simply several true assertions.
>>
> Well you leave me out of THAT thread. And I have no idea what you are
> truly 'asserting'.
Because once again, you lack comprehension.
>> > Your simple little statement
>> > needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
>> > proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
>> > huff and puff.
>>
>> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
>> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
>> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
>> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
>> probably exceeds your attention span.
>>
>
> Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
> million scenarios? Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
> practical it is, like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
> was pushing the little green stalk thing?
Why should it be our responsibility to educate you on something you
obviously have no desire (or ability) to learn? Even if we were to
try to teach you, you'd just come back with the same false assertions.
>> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
>> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
>> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
>> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
>> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
>> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>>
> I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
> is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
> viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
> else it could never be viable.
The watch analogy is false, since the watch isn't alive and doesn't
fight to survive. The fact is that once life exists, it must adapt
to its environment or die. That is what evolution is.
>> > > >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
>> > > >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>>
>> > > >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
>> > > >> think it came about.
>>
>> > > > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>>
>> > > Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
>> > > simple fact.
>>
>> > How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
>> > many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
>> > paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>>
>> If a house burns down, we know that there may have been one original
>> fire, or several, or many. There may or not be evidence indicating
>> which. But one would suffice, yes? Just because there are many
>> possibilities doesn't mean they are all equally likely. And saying one
>> is sufficient isnot the same as saying there actually was only one. Do
>> you see the difference?
>>
> Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
Once again you read but you don't comprehend.
>> > > >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>>
>> > > >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>>
>> > > >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
>> > > >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
>> > > >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
>> > > >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
>> > > >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>>
>> > > >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
>> > > >> it's a word that has a definition?
>>
>> > > > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>>
>> > > > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>>
>> > > > Of course it has no definition.
>>
>> > > False.
>>
>> > Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
>>
>> Biological Evolution has a meaning which is accepted by the scientific
>> community. To argue against its common technical usage is as silly as
>> arguing with jazz musicians over the meaning of swing, or with auto
>> mechanics over the meaning of "tune up".
>>
> The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
But Galileo was a scientist, not a religious nutjob who claimed God
told him that the earth revolves around the sun.
> There's lots of motivation IMO for finding how life works. Prestige
> and money and lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig
> God, well that might even be satanic.
Oh, brother...
> Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip hop scientific argot
> going on, and pretty soon you believe its true, especially when
> morality is very unscientific, just like God.
For one, morality is scientific. It is an observed human trait. For
another, science has never disproved the existence of a god. There
just is no scientific evidence for one.
> Anyway to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones
> soul. I am sure I am perfectly clear.
You've made it perfectly clear that you are (a) a religious nut who
denies known scientific facts and (b) unable to comprehend what other
people who try to educate you to what those facts are.
>> > > > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>>
>> > > The same can be said for all words.
>>
>> > Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
>> > just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
>>
>> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
>> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
>> field they have a clear meaning.
>>
> I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
Nobody here is conversing in ghetto.
>> > The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
>>
>> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
>> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
>> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
>>
> Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it. It must
> be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
Have you really written for Guinness? Or did you just drink a few
bottles of Guinness before posting here?
>> > That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
>>
>> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
>> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
>>
> It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
> Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
> spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
> word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
So because science used a previously known word to describe their
theory, that makes it invalid?
>> > The
>> > theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>>
>> Mmmm.
>> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
>> for them.
>> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
>> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>>
> Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
>
>>
>>
>> > > > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
>> > > > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
>> > > > off.
>>
>> > > Because it would not be precise enough.
>>
>> > Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>>
>> No, in the biological context, evolution is very specific. It refers
>> to the distribution of alleles.
>>
> They sound like aliens on Star Trek. You can keep that cool argot to
> yourselves.
Once again you prove yourself to be very, very stupid.
>> "Change" does not have a technical usage in biology, to my knowledge.
>> What changed - the population size, the ratio of genders, the mating
>> song, the preferred prey? Those are not (necessarily) evolution.
>>
> And I thought you were talking about life forms when speaking of your
> Change Theory. It must have been the Planet Seeders.
Stupid people often make jokes when they can't understand what's being
said.
>> > > >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>>
>> > > >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>>
>> > > > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
>> > > > religions.
>>
>> > > Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>>
> Back to JC if you admit that it is and is not.
You're drunk, aren't you?
>> > Evolution doesn't want to be a religion, but when it comes to the
>> > subjective definition it presents, and follows a pattern of lifestyle
>> > which opines about God or creation, then it is just another religion
>> > (lifestyle) that is present in world societies.
>>
>> Evolutionary science says nothing about gods, any more than chemistry
>> or meteorology or geology do. Nor is it a lifestyle. It is a
>> scientific field of inquiry.
>>
> My watch came by the tooth fairy?
Um...sure...sure it did. *pats curt on the head*
> I must admit I have plenty of laughs watching the Discovery Channel
> and Animal Planet when nature or the environment takes on
> 'personality'. They can't admit, but the romantic language is just
> too alluring for them. Actually its not very relevant, since if they
> could or should, could be injected into the making of the 'correct
> formula'. To discount what is observed, and even conceded by
> evolutionists that everything seems to be 'well packaged' should at
> least have all theories giving some attention to the possibility at
> least.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>> > > >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> > > >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>>
>> > > >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
>> > > >> >> look at the evidence.
>>
>> > > >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>>
>> > > >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
>> > > >> too long.
>>
>> > > > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
>> > > > very young too.
>>
>> > > You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>>
>> > Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
>> > pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
>> > accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
>> > Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
>>
>> OK, I wasn't going to say anything about your grammar, but now I have
>> to ask: what language did you publish in?
>> "Opine", for example, is a verb.
>>
> The dreaded demean. It's either a typo, a syntax observation, or a
> misspell, usually, but no we have a noun-verb person here. Verbs are
> closely associated in many ways with Nouns. Opine-The Opiner ... to
> speak - The speaker. Surely you can do better than this, can't you?
But neither "opine" nor "opiner" fits in that sentence. The word that
would better fit would be "opinion."
>> > > >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
>> > > >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>>
>> > > >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
>> > > >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
>> > > >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
>> > > >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
>> > > >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
>> > > >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
>> > > >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>>
>> > > > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>>
>> > > Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>>
>> > Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>>
>> So, you are unimpressed by facts? Arguments puzzle you, logic bores
>> you. Tsk.
>>
> No, I am impressed by worthiness. You assume behind door number 1,
> that there is tantalizing research and truth. I might be a little
> spoiled from other sites I frequent, but I need a little teaser, a
> preview if you will that will entice myself to go there. It's like a
> movie. I could never view all the movies they put out. It's a
> physical impossibility. Should I further my scenario here?
We are not asking you to read *all* the information available on
evolution (although it would help, since you seem to be completely
unable to comprehend it on your own). Your original post had 20
questions that I thought you wanted answers to. The links I provided
had those answers.
>> > > >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> > > >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> > > >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
>> > > >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>>
>> > > >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
>> > > >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>>
>> > > >> > Show a brain evolving.
>>
>> > > >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
>> > > >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>>
>> > > > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>>
>> > > You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>>
>> > How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
>> > don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>>
>> We use all of our brains, much of the time. It made no sense to think
>> otherwise 50 years ago, and we can now see in real time every part of
>> our brains jumping into action as various tasks are performed.
>>
> Is there any scientific proof that the more facts we take in the
> bigger our head gets?
Once again you display complete ignorance of how nature (specifically
the brain) works. And you expect us to believe you have somehow
disproven the Theory of Evolution?
> Actually I think my storage thesis is well-supported in the Neuro
> community.
Nothing you have written so far is supported at all in any scientific
community.
>> > It has so much storage
>> > capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
>> > made),
>>
>> Why does a storage capacity imply design? And it is nothing like
>> computers in structure of mechanism, except in the most general terms:
>> data storage, and data processing.
>>
> Well usually there is a nice picturesque vision given to the reason
> why something is in the Change World. Certainly with all our billions
> and trillions of synopses we can opine just why the evolution god
> deemed why would need so many. We don't need a zillion things of
> electricity to make something go, why this in the brain?
Because that's how the nervous system works. Are you actually arguing
that the nervous system does not work the way science has proven it to
work?
>> > that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
>> > plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
>>
>> Not at all. Evolution clearly followed a meandering path. There is no
>> goal, Why don't you talk about cockroaches - what can you "conclude"
>> from them? They are just as evolved as we.
>>
> Or the cockroaches were just put here just like we were put here, all
> in our complete naked forms. You aren't going to say were Cockroaches
> Uncles are you?
The only people who believe we were put here in our "complete naked
forms" are religious people who are in complete denial of known
scientific facts.
>> > > >> > Just because one can't pinpoint an event in history doesn't mean it
>> > > >> > couldn't of happened.
>>
>> > > >> No, but the evidence strongly suggests it never happened.
>>
>> > > > But many people who are evolutionists seem to agree that there are
>> > > > certain periods that need 'suddenness' as opposed to many eons to
>> > > > support what they think might be a theory.
>>
>> > > Who thinks that and in what context? Or is this just something else
>> > > you pulled out of your ass?
>>
>> > Just have to read up on it. Evolutionists get cornered all the time,
>> > and come out with their left and right shifts to accomadate what must
>> > be to pacify their theory.
>>
>> Please provide a cite. Please offer a specific example. I think that
>> you vaguely remember a creationist strawman built from a misunderstood
>> rumor derived from a misrepresented reading of Gould's earliest pop
>> science books.
>>
> Really I am on the road and bookless, but I have with my hand on a
> Bible seen several references from a non-religious scientific
> community that refers to the sudden 'happenings' (Faster Change
> Theory) to be relevant to support the Slow Change Theory. I bet you
> could google that and get a good smattering of Opine on that one.
Scientists already know that evolution doesn't happen at the same
speed everywhere in all species. "Faster" or "slower" changes
present no problems to the Theory of Evolution.
Right. They must be incredibly stupid people to listen to your
uninformed ramblings.
--
<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK
THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF
ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL
LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE
FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell
Iain
> On 12 Dec, 21:01, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:24 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > <news:5903851e-f5ea-4c05...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > On 12 Dec, 10:57, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> <news:ea874e40-b0e0-462f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> > On 11 Dec, 18:40, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:53:57 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >> <news:44050ce7-bc53-49d8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> > Perhaps in your own words you can explain how all life came from one
> > >> > source, when we don't see that happening today?
>
> > >> Why would we need to see all life coming from one source? Once
> > >> evolution has gotten us to where we are today, there's no need to
> > >> reinvent the wheel every time new life is created.
>
> > > Really you need how it came even from A source, before you can guess
> > > how evolution a undefinable word as "gotten us" somewhere.
>
> > Wrong. Evolution merely describes the process once life has begun.
> > It does not deal with the first cause.
>
Because that's not what it is.
Do you really not get it? Evolution describes long-term genetic change
in populations. Why would this have any _particular_ relevance to the
origins of life?
~Iain
Iain
Right -- and?
Why would anything lack components?
You do realise that evolution is synchronised, right? All the traits
of an organism adapt to work with eachother -- just as the organism
adapts to work within the environment.
~Iain
curtjester1
> In message
> <87c1b85f-cf8c-47f7-aeae-7f92dfabb...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
And your "factuality of common descent" is just as fallacious in
theory as it is in numerous scenario possibilities.
CJ
John Vreeland
What? Do you even understand what common descent is and why it must
be true? If have some convincing argument against it I think the
world's biologists would like to know. They've been searching for one
since Linneus first started categorizing all biological life in the
18th century.
curtjester1
But it might not have adapted if not having been given numerous
'givens'.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> > It has to be a viable theory which it isn't.
>
> Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution is viable and has withstood the
> test of time with no serious flaws.
>
the contention is? Change has to have a specific direction. The
coming to a T in the road is as commonplace as the roads that are
devised. One picks one way the other, the other way. People will
make tremendous assumptions with one particular fossil find, like in
the chimp or human family. The world wants more proof than a handful
of bones to make that viable. There should be thousands, millions, or
billions of those fused species over the standard millions of years
concept that evolutionists seemed to have been trained in. Nobody
argues that change exists, it's just the directions and the
definitions one concludes from them.
> > It's like proving by steps the algebraic formula. You get part of
> > the way through, and say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
>
> So why do you insist on only learning part of evolutionary theory?
> You're already getting an F for comprehension.
>
Mindless teenage spittle. It's like see, I have this really neat
theory, and well in my opinion, it's actually 'TRUE'. And I compare
with my unpenetratable shield to make these grades and wild
assertions.
> >> > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> >> > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> >> > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> >> > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>
> >> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> >> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>
> > You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> > evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> > the side, and make a general ad hominem. Your simple little statement
> > needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> > proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> > huff and puff.
>
> You keep saying the same false things over and over no matter how
> much I or others explain them to you.
>
I only ASK the questions and PROBE. You assume that since I believe
in God, that I am somehow FALSE. But that is so usual for the
evolutionist crowd. God is not scientific, therefore God doesn't
exist. God can't exist because there must be some other explanation
that we could scenarioize or find. And noone is explaining anything.
They are just throwing generalized theory and hoping it sticks. They
have heard it for so long, that it has already 'stuck' for them.
> >> >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> >> >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> >> >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> >> >> think it came about.
>
> >> > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>
> >> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> >> simple fact.
>
> > How do you know "there is no need"?
>
> Because life already exists at that point.
>
But you don't even opine to how it existed and by what means. Did it
come with seeds? Did it come with a will to wiggle and move on? Did
it come with sexual urges? Did the sexual urges have meaning when
there were no sex organs? Common sense says, "he who created them,
created them male and female." Came with a complete backage of
batter, gratifcation points, correct plumbing, and a whole battery of
systems to back them up, like brains, eyeballs, logic factors.......ad
nauseum...hundreds more....
> > Such a generalization with so many possibilites and you answer it
> > like you grabbed a little piece a paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>
> That's basically what your understanding of evolution amounts to.
>
Condescendation is your only ally.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>
> >> >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>
> >> >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> >> >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> >> >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> >> >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> >> >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>
> >> >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> >> >> it's a word that has a definition?
>
> >> > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>
> >> > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>
> >> > Of course it has no definition.
>
> >> False.
>
> > Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
>
> It's not that it's different from the word change, just that it goes
> into more detail. You can find the definition in any dictionary.
>
Hmmm...more scenorioized detail? Oh, and a dictionary is correct?
You can go to a dictionary and look up the word communism and it will
have everybody having a part in the ownership of the state. Like
everybody has a piece of the New Jersey Turnpike. It is laughable,
but well the dictionary said it.
> >> > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>
> >> The same can be said for all words.
>
> > Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> > just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
> > The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
> > That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean. The
> > theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>
> Many words have more than one meaning, but we are discussing the
> evolution of living things and the Theory of Evolution.
>
Of course, but that attempted defining of 'A' theory has many
definitions from many differing outlooks.
> >> > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> >> > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> >> > off.
>
> >> Because it would not be precise enough.
>
> > Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>
> Wrong again. It would be less precise.
>
Elaboration is not your strong suit.
> >> >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> >> >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> >> > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> >> > religions.
>
> >> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
> > Evolution doesn't want to be a religion,
>
> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
If you say it one million more times, you won't be detracted ever.
> > but when it comes to the subjective definition it presents, and
> > follows a pattern of lifestyle which opines about God or creation,
> > then it is just another religion (lifestyle) that is present in world
> > societies.
>
> Except evolution says nothing about any gods or lifestyles. You are
> terribly confused if you think it does.
>
It does by some evolutionists. They might not be of your sect, but
you should monitor them closely.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
> >> >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>
> >> >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>
> >> >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> >> >> >> look at the evidence.
>
> >> >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>
> >> >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
> >> >> too long.
>
> >> > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
> >> > very young too.
>
> >> You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>
> > Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
> > pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
> > accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
> > Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
>
> If you're so accomplished, why don't you read what other people say
> and comprehend it?
>
I have already stated, you need to provide an advertising impetus to
make something appealing like a commercial or a movie review would.
You have stated nothing provacative to make me click yet.
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> >> >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> >> >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> >> >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> >> >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> >> >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> >> >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> >> >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> >> >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
> >> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> >> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>
> > Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>
> But it seems to be necessary when talking to you.
>
>
Arrogance sometimes has no bounds.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> >> >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> >> >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> >> >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> >> >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> >> >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> >> >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> >> >> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> >> >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
> >> >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
> >> > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>
> >> You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>
> > How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved?
>
> Because it has. Ancestors of homo sapiens had a smaller cranial
> capacity, indicating smaller, less developed brains.
>
Less developed, how? Bigger has more knowledge capabilities. How
about people with small heads now that are in say Mensa? How about
people that are generally bigger over the last century because of more
proficient nutrition habits. They are smarter now? You have GOT to
be kidding?!
> > We don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>
> You may not, but the rest of us use 100% of our brains.
>
Not only scientifically incorrect, it is very condescending. Of
course we know these sites usually have agendas, and people tend to
cheerlead for their choices, but I was warned that they do get
militant. I am beginning to agree.
> > It has so much storage capability (a definite sign that it was
> > made...just like computers are made), that evolution to be true must
> > not only emerge things, it must plan way ahead for the next creature.
> > Talk about science fiction.
>
> Wrong again. Evolution does
>
Many people are swayed in the science community alone that the brain
could have never evolved, that it had to have been created.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately the definition is what is disagreed upon by many.
CJ
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> It has to be a viable theory which it isn't. It's like proving by
> >>> steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and
> >>> say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
> >> Why? You assert this, but you offer no reason to think so.
>
> > Because if you have been following the thread, the Opiner goes into
> > first cause as being One, and that is somehow another science that
> > doesn't necessarily connect to 'his' science. I am saying if you
> > aren't going to connect the two you are somehow lacking and
> > 'unviable'.
>
> Why? If one doesn't know how life started, one can still learn a great
> deal about how it diversified.
>
everything that causes change was in that first move from lifelessness
to life.
> > But since I know that you can't, I don't expect you too,
> > but I do expect unspecific ways of sidestepping which I have been a
> > witness to abundantly.
>
> There is no "sidestep". Evolution doesn't deal with how life began.
>
Because, it 'can't', 'won't, or can't even control it's own definition
of itself?
>
>
> >> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
> >> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
> >> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
>
> > Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
> > could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
> > theory.
>
> Whether or not evolution is "cool" it's been observed.
>
Change can be very mundane if it's long on theory and short on
specifics.
>
>
> >> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
> >> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>
> > Once "we had"??!! When did you have?
>
> According to the evidence, somewhere between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years
> ago. Exactly how life began is under investigation, but currently
> unknown.
>
Of course there are millions of questions that surround self-
replicating organisms. I think I touched on that just a few minutes
ago in another answer with all the 'what came first the sexual desire
or the procreation' analogies.
> > It's like saying that given
> > situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
> > theory can now proceed.
>
> Yes, and what's wrong with that? Do you dispute that life began? If
> so, why?
>
Sure we can dispute a life beganning. We can say all the elements
that existed on earth existed prior, as we now know matter cannot be
created nor destroyed -- Einstein. All we have here was here before,
just rearranged. So now we can say whether it started on earth or
elsewhere, is basically up for grabs. If elsewhere, then we can we
say how it got transported to earth as being real or important? Most
will assume that since there were nice things like water and heat,
that it was 'ripe' for life. But isn't that just being
presumptuous?
> > Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
> > what is seemingly inevitable.
>
> Once there is life, evolution happens, because life does not reproduce
> perfectly. What is "out of bounds" about that?
>
But getting to the point of life must be terribly complex and would I
think give the blueprint for many of the scenarios of evolution,
eliminating lots of them with what would be 'now' known. It's out of
bounds in that you don't know if everything came complete, or if all
the seeds were in place, or if amoebas were accidental or well-
planned. There is like Mr.Sagan says, billions, and billions of
factors that you do not know. Many scientists have given the
possibilites necessary for life assigned numbers, and to get one piece
of life, it would take a google of nth degrees of ingredient
parlayings to get life. And they do have numbers of google where it
is beyond unlikely or beyond luck. That number is pointed against
life arising spontaneously, and points to Engineering.
>
>
> >>>>> Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> >>>>> detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> >>>>> be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> >>>>> necessity on The Change Theory's part.
> >>>> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> >>>> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
> >>> You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> >>> evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> >>> the side, and make a general ad hominem.
> >> We've got a thread going on at this moment on the nature of ad hominem
> >> fallacies. This was not a fallacy of any sort; it wasn't even an
> >> argument. It was simply several true assertions.
>
> > Well you leave me out of THAT thread.
>
> Yeah, why bother to learn anything?
>
Like you have, that will offer any gem of truth to have people flock
to your little club's sites?
> And I have no idea what you are
>
> > truly 'asserting'.
>
> The true assertions above were: "You're very confused." ,"As long as
> there is life, evolution applies." and, "If there is no life, there is
> no evolution". Does that help you? There were no ad hominems above.
>
It only adds to the redundancy, of assuming what you are trying to
prove with not much in the way of profoundness IMO.
>
>
> >>> Your simple little statement
> >>> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> >>> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> >>> huff and puff.
> >> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
> >> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
> >> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
> >> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
> >> probably exceeds your attention span.
>
> > Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
> > million scenarios?
>
> In order to learn. Evolution, by the way is not "speculative", or
> "subjective".
>
Do you know how many evolution theories there are, as well as creation
theories, as well as a combination of the two theories?
> > Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
> > practical it is,
>
> Evolution is very logical, and very practical. But you could learn that
> for yourself, rather than depending on my, or anyone else's say so.
>
I find it arrogant and self-assuming, yet I find changes in nature
interesting.
> > like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
> > was pushing the little green stalk thing?
>
> Sorry, this does not parse. What exactly are you talking about? What
> does "throught" mean? What "bacteria with a motor"? What "little
> green stalk thing"?
>
>
Ooops, I should have dropped that last t. Its just a mindless
scenario but the fact remains that specifics are what your theories
lack. I was just saying about the bacteria which science says has a
clever little motoring device, would be doing like pushing up a green
thing to help the evolutionary cause along. That's all.
>
> >> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
> >> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
> >> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
> >> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
> >> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
> >> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>
> > I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
> > is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
> > viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
> > else it could never be viable.
>
> This is Paley's "argument from design" intermingled with Behe's
> "Irreducible Complexity". The mistake is in assuming that evolution can
> only add parts to a system, and that all parts have to have the same
> function. A watch with missing parts can be useful as something other
> than a timepiece. Cells, for example are very complex, but they are
> not "irreducibly" so. Eukaryote cells are more complex than bacteria,
> which are more complex than the first self replicating life forms, which
> were more complex than viruses, etc. etc...
>
But basically what we have that the whole world sees, is something
'well-packaged'. There are no missing pieces else the creature or
organism would die or be severely hampered. People look at that and
think and say, that since I don't see the 'in-betweens' of what my
imagination might devise, I might as well believe that an Engineer did
this. We have a problem that the Engineer gets excluded from the
equation and gets replaced by Contests of Nature or the Environment
ONLY. Saying that JUST the watch was with less parts gaining a part
here or there to make the 18 is well needing of a little more piazzzz
IMO and the world at large.
>
>
> >>>>>>> and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> >>>>>>> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
> >>>>>> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> >>>>>> think it came about.
> >>>>> Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
> >>>> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> >>>> simple fact.
> >>> How do you know "there is no need"? Such a generalization with so
> >>> many possibilites and you answer it like you grabbed a little piece a
> >>> paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
> >> If a house burns down, we know that there may have been one original
> >> fire, or several, or many. There may or not be evidence indicating
> >> which. But one would suffice, yes? Just because there are many
> >> possibilities doesn't mean they are all equally likely. And saying one
> >> is sufficient isnot the same as saying there actually was only one. Do
> >> you see the difference?
>
> > Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
>
> Evolution is a viable concept. What part of of it are you not
> understanding?
>
It's only a viable concept when one sees the whole picture. I don't
think you theories offer that chance.
>
>
> >>>>>>> Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
> >>>>>> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
> >>>>>>> Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> >>>>>>> contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
> >>>>>>> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> >>>>>>> so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> >>>>>>> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
> >>>>>> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
> >>>>>> it's a word that has a definition?
> >>>>> Ooops I misspelled enamored.
> >>>>> I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
> >>>>> Of course it has no definition.
> >>>> False.
> >>> Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
> >> Biological Evolution has a meaning which is accepted by the scientific
> >> community. To argue against its common technical usage is as silly as
> >> arguing with jazz musicians over the meaning of swing, or with auto
> >> mechanics over the meaning of "tune up".
>
> > The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
>
> No, at the time of Galileo, there was no "scientific community".
> Galielo's opponents were not other scientists as science as a discipline
> didn't really exist then. Galileo got into trouble with the Church, for
> opposing doctrine, not for producing a new idea of how nature worked.
>
Well, then the Flat Earth Society.
> Furthermore, in order to put on the mantle of Galileo, you have to be
> right. As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, and the laughed at
> Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just being ridiculed
> by scientists doesn't mean you are right.
>
And Newton making more contributions to the religious field than the
scientific field doesn't make him wrong either.
> > There's lots of
> > motivation IMO for finding how life works.
>
> Which is why scientists are looking into the concept.
>
Which is why the motivation for much of the whole field might not be
on a pure playing field.
> > Prestige and money and
> > lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
> > might even be satanic.
>
> Sorry, but all science works without considering God, or any other
> supernatural being. It's not "satanic" but just how science works.
> There is no reason why God can't use the processes that scientists are
> studying.
>
It should consider God. God is just another scientific concept. Out
of world engineering capablities. Satanism wants to rail against God
in any shape or form in much of religious dogma. Many evolutionists
even claim to be satanists, because it takes god out of the theory and
elevates their's somehow.
> > Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
> > hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
>
> Because of the evidence. It would be foolish to believe something is
> false when it fits the evidence.
>
And how does God or creationism, 'not fit'?
> > especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God.
>
> Where do you get the idea that "morality" is unscientific? God as
> concept is not unscientific, appeals to the supernatural as an
> explanation for natural phenomena is unscientific.
>
There are sectors that believe there is no right or wrong. Everything
is just cause and effect. Therefore lying, stealing, and neutralizing
people are just part of life, instead of making it a 'bad'. It may
be that 'survival of the fittest' is without morality and is the
scientists way of thinking for is holy grail.
> > Anyway
> > to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones soul. I
> > am sure I am perfectly clear.
>
> Clear as mud.
>
What do you think the Scientist would get if he caught the picture of
life going from non-existent to existent would be?
>
>
> >>>>> It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
> >>>> The same can be said for all words.
> >>> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> >>> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
> >> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
> >> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
> >> field they have a clear meaning.
>
> > I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
>
> Irrelevant. Whether or not you understand scientific jargon is not
> relevant to whether or not a concept is true.
>
It maybe though the jargon is for the secret society of interpretors
and meant not to be understood.
>
>
> >>> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
> >> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
> >> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
> >> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
>
> > Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it.
>
> Would it kill you to educate yourself for once?
>
So testy here. It's like people who don't take an interest in the
hundreds of theories of life are somehow uneducated. I am sorry but
only certain sector of society can do the New York Times Saturday
Crossword. I am one of those who occassionally accomplish that feat.
That must mean since you probably don't, aren't as 'educated' as I am?
> > It must
> > be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
>
> An allele is a particular form of a gene. Like hair color, (could be
> red, or brown, or blond), or eye color (green, blue, brown, hazel).
> Evolution is change in the frequency of a particular type of gene over
> generations in a population.
>
Oh, that's way far up the Change ladder.
>
>
> >>> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
> >> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
> >> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
>
> > It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
> > Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
> > spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
> > word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
>
> The word "evolution" before Darwin used it, meant "unfolding", or how
> events happen over time. Darwin used it to mean the change of
> morphology in a population over time. (Darwin didn't know about genes,
> or gene expressions)
>
I see, just another ghetto word...-:)
>
>
> >>> The
> >>> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
> >> Mmmm.
> >> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
> >> for them.
> >> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
> >> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>
> > Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
>
> Which tends to indicate you don't understand how words are used in the
> English language.
>
Well, I will let you dawdle in your on condesceningism here. You are
on your own.
CJ
Ips-Switch
> On Dec 13, 4:15 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d58459d7-ce33-446d...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 12 Dec, 21:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:916dd6df-543c-4a1f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
>> >> >> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
>>
>> >> That's what YOU claimed!
>>
>> > That's what a large segment of earth's human population claims.
>>
>> They claim we evolved in outer space where this god also evolved?
>>
> Who cares about your weird question, they believe God is a meaningful
> entity that is instrumental in earths affairs.
Is that why this god allowed millions of innocent people to be murdered in
Germany?
>
>> >> We evolved as did all other life on earth.
>>
>> > Evolved from what?
>>
>> What do you think? Have you read the sites you were provided? If so you
>> would already know the answer.
>>
>
> A one word or two word answer would have done, or maybe a little
> phrase. You can't reguritate your site crutch?
Why don't you answer questions? Why do you demand other people type pages
and pages in reply to you? All you do is send them to idiotic religious
sites written by bible thumping dingbats.
Snip the same old BS from you that you repeat endlessly like a broken
record. Come back when you have evidence of gods amd demon
monsters.........
Kathy
>
> But it might not have adapted if not having been given numerous
> 'givens'.
Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening to your beliefs of
the supernatural, in gods and in demons?
DärFläken
>
> Unfortunately the definition is what is disagreed upon by many.
>
By many who?
Kathy
>>
> Many people are swayed in the science community alone that the brain
> could have never evolved, that it had to have been created.
Which means you believe everyone just *POPPED* into existence one day when a
god decided he needed some new pets to worship him? That man suddenly
appeared as he is today? And your scientific and physical evidence for this
is.......????
Bill Baker
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<5587a92d-b7fc-402f...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>
>> > It has to be a viable theory which it isn't.
>>
>> Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution is viable and has withstood the
>> test of time with no serious flaws.
>>
> How long are you going to dance with generalizations that assume what
> the contention is? Change has to have a specific direction. The
> coming to a T in the road is as commonplace as the roads that are
> devised. One picks one way the other, the other way. People will
> make tremendous assumptions with one particular fossil find, like in
> the chimp or human family. The world wants more proof than a handful
> of bones to make that viable.
There's already plenty of proof. Much more than "a handful of bones."
There are thousands of fossils scientists have studied that provide
more than enough proof of evolution.
> There should be thousands, millions, or billions of those fused species
> over the standard millions of years concept that evolutionists seemed
> to have been trained in.
Wrong again. Not every bone becomes a fossil. It's actually pretty
rare for one to become a fossil.
> Nobody argues that change exists, it's just the directions and the
> definitions one concludes from them.
Only religious people who wish to stay ignorant of evolution because
they want to believe it's against their religion argues that.
>> > It's like proving by steps the algebraic formula. You get part of
>> > the way through, and say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
>>
>> So why do you insist on only learning part of evolutionary theory?
>> You're already getting an F for comprehension.
>>
> Mindless teenage spittle. It's like see, I have this really neat
> theory, and well in my opinion, it's actually 'TRUE'. And I compare
> with my unpenetratable shield to make these grades and wild
> assertions.
That certainly describes religion. But not evolutionary science.
>> >> > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
>> >> > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
>> >> > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
>> >> > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>>
>> >> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
>> >> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>>
>> > You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
>> > evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
>> > the side, and make a general ad hominem. Your simple little statement
>> > needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
>> > proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
>> > huff and puff.
>>
>> You keep saying the same false things over and over no matter how
>> much I or others explain them to you.
>>
> I only ASK the questions and PROBE. You assume that since I believe
> in God, that I am somehow FALSE.
Wrong again. I know that your statements are false because I know
the facts and can see the fallacies you're making. If you learned
even the little bit of evolutionary science that I have, you would
see how silly you sound.
> But that is so usual for the evolutionist crowd. God is not
> scientific, therefore God doesn't exist. God can't exist because
> there must be some other explanation that we could scenarioize or
> find. And noone is explaining anything. They are just throwing
> generalized theory and hoping it sticks. They have heard it for so
> long, that it has already 'stuck' for them.
Wrong again. You're once again confusing religion with science.
Scientists test things to see if they're true or not. Religionists
throw generalized theory and make it stick by telling people they
will go to hell if they don't believe it. Religion is what says
that since it's been that way for so long it must be true.
>> >> >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
>> >> >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>>
>> >> >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
>> >> >> think it came about.
>>
>> >> > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>>
>> >> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
>> >> simple fact.
>>
>> > How do you know "there is no need"?
>>
>> Because life already exists at that point.
>>
> But you don't even opine to how it existed and by what means.
There's no need. The fact is that it's here, unless you want to
dispute that.
> Did it come with seeds? Did it come with a will to wiggle and move on?
> Did it come with sexual urges? Did the sexual urges have meaning when
> there were no sex organs? Common sense says, "he who created them,
> created them male and female." Came with a complete backage of
> batter, gratifcation points, correct plumbing, and a whole battery of
> systems to back them up, like brains, eyeballs, logic factors.......ad
> nauseum...hundreds more....
Just because you believe that doesn't make it true. It is a fact that
life evolved. It has been observed both long and short term. Nobody
has ever been able to refute that fact. If you want to believe it
happened another way, you're welcome to it, but don't think anyone
else is going to take your word for it.
>> > Such a generalization with so many possibilites and you answer it
>> > like you grabbed a little piece a paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>>
>> That's basically what your understanding of evolution amounts to.
>>
> Condescendation is your only ally.
You forgot facts and reality.
>> >> >> > Interestingly, the name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be.
>>
>> >> >> <sarcasm> Coincidence?!?! I think not!!!! </sarcasm>
>>
>> >> >> > Like I say, evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
>> >> >> > contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider. There
>> >> >> > always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
>> >> >> > so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
>> >> >> > meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
>>
>> >> >> What the hell does that mean? You're criticizing evolution because
>> >> >> it's a word that has a definition?
>>
>> >> > Ooops I misspelled enamored.
>>
>> >> > I only attempt to give example to narrow Change Theory reasoning.
>>
>> >> > Of course it has no definition.
>>
>> >> False.
>>
>> > Then give it, if it has any difference than the word change.
>>
>> It's not that it's different from the word change, just that it goes
>> into more detail. You can find the definition in any dictionary.
>>
> Hmmm...more scenorioized detail?
Look it up in the dictionary.
> Oh, and a dictionary is correct?
Generally, yes.
> You can go to a dictionary and look up the word communism and it will
> have everybody having a part in the ownership of the state. Like
> everybody has a piece of the New Jersey Turnpike. It is laughable,
> but well the dictionary said it.
New Jersey is not a communist state, either.
>> >> > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>>
>> >> The same can be said for all words.
>>
>> > Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
>> > just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
>> > The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
>> > That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean. The
>> > theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>>
>> Many words have more than one meaning, but we are discussing the
>> evolution of living things and the Theory of Evolution.
>>
> Of course, but that attempted defining of 'A' theory has many
> definitions from many differing outlooks.
For scientists it has one specific definition.
>> >> > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
>> >> > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
>> >> > off.
>>
>> >> Because it would not be precise enough.
>>
>> > Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>>
>> Wrong again. It would be less precise.
>>
> Elaboration is not your strong suit.
Why should I elaborate when you would just ignore what I say and continue
to make the same erroneous statements? I don't have all day to sit
around and make detailed replies to every one of your false statements.
>> >> >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>>
>> >> >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>>
>> >> > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
>> >> > religions.
>>
>> >> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>>
>> > Evolution doesn't want to be a religion,
>>
>> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>>
>
> If you say it one million more times, you won't be detracted ever.
I only repeat facts.
>> > but when it comes to the subjective definition it presents, and
>> > follows a pattern of lifestyle which opines about God or creation,
>> > then it is just another religion (lifestyle) that is present in world
>> > societies.
>>
>> Except evolution says nothing about any gods or lifestyles. You are
>> terribly confused if you think it does.
>>
> It does by some evolutionists. They might not be of your sect, but
> you should monitor them closely.
Wrong again. Evolution has never said anything about any gods or
lifestyles. That is left strictly to religion.
>> >> >> >> >> > What we see is complex systems within systems well-packaged. Even
>> >> >> >> >> > the most ardent evolutionists will have to agree to that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes, because we evolved to adapt to our environment.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Still assuming what needs to be proved.
>>
>> >> >> >> It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
>> >> >> >> look at the evidence.
>>
>> >> >> > It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'.
>>
>> >> >> Of course it has. You've just been listening to creationist lies for
>> >> >> too long.
>>
>> >> > I never listened to any debate before making my decision. I believe
>> >> > very young too.
>>
>> >> You write like you're very young, too. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
>>
>> > Of course you have to demean. That's part of your religion. If the
>> > pot gets too hot, bring out the childish sayings. I am very well
>> > accomplished in the literary field, and have published stuff in the
>> > Guiness Book, so all do not share your little opine here.
>>
>> If you're so accomplished, why don't you read what other people say
>> and comprehend it?
>>
>
> I have already stated, you need to provide an advertising impetus to
> make something appealing like a commercial or a movie review would.
> You have stated nothing provacative to make me click yet.
So in other words, your only reason for posting the original twenty
questions is to smugly think you have some sort of insight into
evolution that scientists are trying to keep secret and you refuse
to read answers that someone posts, especially if they prove you wrong
because the links didn't "entice" you to click on them.
>> >> >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
>> >> >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>>
>> >> >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
>> >> >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
>> >> >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
>> >> >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
>> >> >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
>> >> >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
>> >> >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>>
>> >> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>>
>> >> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>>
>> > Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>>
>> But it seems to be necessary when talking to you.
>>
>>
>
> Arrogance sometimes has no bounds.
Ignorance never has any bounds.
>> >> >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
>> >> >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
>> >> >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>>
>> >> >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>>
>> >> >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
>> >> >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>>
>> >> >> > Show a brain evolving.
>>
>> >> >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
>> >> >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>>
>> >> > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>>
>> >> You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>>
>> > How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved?
>>
>> Because it has. Ancestors of homo sapiens had a smaller cranial
>> capacity, indicating smaller, less developed brains.
>>
>
> Less developed, how? Bigger has more knowledge capabilities. How
> about people with small heads now that are in say Mensa? How about
> people that are generally bigger over the last century because of more
> proficient nutrition habits. They are smarter now? You have GOT to
> be kidding?!
Once again, you have misunderstood. Human beings have cranial capacities
that fall within a range. Ancestors of humans had cranial capacities
that were substantially less.
>> > We don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>>
>> You may not, but the rest of us use 100% of our brains.
>>
> Not only scientifically incorrect,
Wrong again. It is very correct. We do not only use 5% or 10% of
our brains. Human beings use the full 100% as has been proven over
and over in lab experiments.
> it is very condescending. Of course we know these sites usually
> have agendas, and people tend to cheerlead for their choices, but
> I was warned that they do get militant. I am beginning to agree.
Do you think that labeling facts as "militant" means they're wrong?
>> > It has so much storage capability (a definite sign that it was
>> > made...just like computers are made), that evolution to be true must
>> > not only emerge things, it must plan way ahead for the next creature.
>> > Talk about science fiction.
>>
>> Wrong again. Evolution does
>>
> Many people are swayed in the science community alone that the brain
> could have never evolved, that it had to have been created.
Are these scientists evolutionary biologists? Some scientists make
statements about things they know nothing about and aren't in their
field. Most of the time it's because they have a religion that they
want to protect.
--
Bushism 7-15/16:
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but
for predecessors as well."
--Washington, D.C.; January 29, 2001
Dana Tweedy
> On 14 Dec, 17:48, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> It has to be a viable theory which it isn't. It's like proving by
>>>>> steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and
>>>>> say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
>>>> Why? You assert this, but you offer no reason to think so.
>>> Because if you have been following the thread, the Opiner goes into
>>> first cause as being One, and that is somehow another science that
>>> doesn't necessarily connect to 'his' science. I am saying if you
>>> aren't going to connect the two you are somehow lacking and
>>> 'unviable'.
>> Why? If one doesn't know how life started, one can still learn a great
>> deal about how it diversified.
>>
> Can they?,
Yes.
> or is that just your, or just another theory?
A theory is all it needs to be.
> Maybe
> everything that causes change was in that first move from lifelessness
> to life.
Maybe, but the evidence right now shows that it's not necessary to
assume that.
>
>
>>> But since I know that you can't, I don't expect you too,
>>> but I do expect unspecific ways of sidestepping which I have been a
>>> witness to abundantly.
>> There is no "sidestep". Evolution doesn't deal with how life began.
>>
> Because, it 'can't', 'won't, or can't even control it's own definition
> of itself?
No, because it's beyond the scope of the theory. Evolution doesn't
explain why the sky is blue, or why it always rains when you plan a
picnic, either.
>
>>
>>>> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
>>>> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
>>>> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
>>> Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
>>> could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
>>> theory.
>> Whether or not evolution is "cool" it's been observed.
>>
> Change can be very mundane if it's long on theory and short on
> specifics.
lucky then that evolutionary theory is long on specifics.
>
>
>>
>>>> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
>>>> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
>>> Once "we had"??!! When did you have?
>> According to the evidence, somewhere between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years
>> ago. Exactly how life began is under investigation, but currently
>> unknown.
>>
> Of course there are millions of questions that surround self-
> replicating organisms.
Yep, and they are being investigated by scientists.
> I think I touched on that just a few minutes
> ago in another answer with all the 'what came first the sexual desire
> or the procreation' analogies.
Procreation came long before sexual desire.
>
>
>
>>> It's like saying that given
>>> situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
>>> theory can now proceed.
>> Yes, and what's wrong with that? Do you dispute that life began? If
>> so, why?
>>
> Sure we can dispute a life beganning.
So, are you prepared to say that life does not exist?
> We can say all the elements
> that existed on earth existed prior, as we now know matter cannot be
> created nor destroyed -- Einstein.
Right, by our current understandings of physics.
> All we have here was here before,
> just rearranged.
Yes, so? We know the the universe existed for billions of years before
the Earth formed.
> So now we can say whether it started on earth or
> elsewhere, is basically up for grabs.
Sure. But not really relevant to evolution.
> If elsewhere, then we can we
> say how it got transported to earth as being real or important?
I suppose, although comets or meteorites are good candidates.
> Most
> will assume that since there were nice things like water and heat,
> that it was 'ripe' for life. But isn't that just being
> presumptuous?
Not really. Why would say that?
>
>
>>> Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
>>> what is seemingly inevitable.
>> Once there is life, evolution happens, because life does not reproduce
>> perfectly. What is "out of bounds" about that?
>>
> But getting to the point of life must be terribly complex and would I
> think give the blueprint for many of the scenarios of evolution,
Even if it were "terribly complex" so what? Are you assuming that
nature doesn't do complex? Why would you assume that any of the
abiogenesis scenarios were evolution, which deals with already working
life forms?
> eliminating lots of them with what would be 'now' known. It's out of
> bounds in that you don't know if everything came complete,
possible, but highly unlikely.
> or if all
> the seeds were in place,
Chemical studies about the make up of the early Earth suggest they were.
> or if amoebas were accidental or well-
> planned.
Amoebae are not the simplest life forms. They are eukaryote cells which
probably took millions of years to evolve from the earliest life.
Modern ameobae are the result of billions of years of evolution, just
like all other modern life. There is no reason to assume that amoebae
were either "accidental" or "well planned".
> There is like Mr.Sagan says, billions, and billions of
> factors that you do not know.
and until one looks, one will never known. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't
allow any chance of finding out.
> Many scientists have given the
> possibilites necessary for life assigned numbers, and to get one piece
> of life, it would take a google of nth degrees of ingredient
> parlayings to get life.
Citations for this, please.
> And they do have numbers of google where it
> is beyond unlikely or beyond luck. That number is pointed against
> life arising spontaneously, and points to Engineering.
Only if you are assuming that life came together all at once. That
would be highly unlikely. That's why scientists working on abiogenesis
believe it took a very long time, maybe millions of years for the right
combination to happen.
snip
>>> Well you leave me out of THAT thread.
>> Yeah, why bother to learn anything?
>>
> Like you have, that will offer any gem of truth to have people flock
> to your little club's sites?
What's wrong with learning?
>
>> And I have no idea what you are
>>
>>> truly 'asserting'.
>> The true assertions above were: "You're very confused." ,"As long as
>> there is life, evolution applies." and, "If there is no life, there is
>> no evolution". Does that help you? There were no ad hominems above.
>>
> It only adds to the redundancy, of assuming what you are trying to
> prove with not much in the way of profoundness IMO.
Where have I made any such assumption? And why should your opinion
count, if you aren't willing to become educated?
>
>>
>>>>> Your simple little statement
>>>>> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
>>>>> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
>>>>> huff and puff.
>>>> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
>>>> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
>>>> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
>>>> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
>>>> probably exceeds your attention span.
>>> Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
>>> million scenarios?
>> In order to learn. Evolution, by the way is not "speculative", or
>> "subjective".
>>
> Do you know how many evolution theories there are, as well as creation
> theories, as well as a combination of the two theories?
As far as the basics of evolution,as science, only one. There are no
"creation theories", only creation stories.
>
>>> Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
>>> practical it is,
>> Evolution is very logical, and very practical. But you could learn that
>> for yourself, rather than depending on my, or anyone else's say so.
>>
> I find it arrogant and self-assuming, yet I find changes in nature
> interesting.
Again, why should your opinion count, as you won't educate yourself?
>
>>> like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
>>> was pushing the little green stalk thing?
>> Sorry, this does not parse. What exactly are you talking about? What
>> does "throught" mean? What "bacteria with a motor"? What "little
>> green stalk thing"?
>>
>>
> Ooops, I should have dropped that last t. Its just a mindless
> scenario but the fact remains that specifics are what your theories
> lack.
Do you mean how the bacterial flagellum formed? That is not yet known,
but it's being investigated. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't get you any
closer to knowing.
> I was just saying about the bacteria which science says has a
> clever little motoring device, would be doing like pushing up a green
> thing to help the evolutionary cause along. That's all.
The "clever little motoring device" appears to be an evolutionary
adaptation of another type of bacterial structure. What "green thing"
are you talking about?
>
>>>> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
>>>> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
>>>> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
>>>> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
>>>> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
>>>> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
>>> I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
>>> is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
>>> viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
>>> else it could never be viable.
>> This is Paley's "argument from design" intermingled with Behe's
>> "Irreducible Complexity". The mistake is in assuming that evolution can
>> only add parts to a system, and that all parts have to have the same
>> function. A watch with missing parts can be useful as something other
>> than a timepiece. Cells, for example are very complex, but they are
>> not "irreducibly" so. Eukaryote cells are more complex than bacteria,
>> which are more complex than the first self replicating life forms, which
>> were more complex than viruses, etc. etc...
>>
> But basically what we have that the whole world sees, is something
> 'well-packaged'.
By natural processes.
> There are no missing pieces else the creature or
> organism would die or be severely hampered.
However that doesn't mean those parts were formed just by adding them.
Evolution does more than simply add on. Parts change in function,
they can be added, or subtracted. The organism's predecessors may have
had a slightly different structure which was co-opted to do something
else in the modern organism.
> People look at that and
> think and say, that since I don't see the 'in-betweens' of what my
> imagination might devise, I might as well believe that an Engineer did
> this.
Which is a fallacy, known as "argument from ignorance". Someone may
not see the "in between" steps, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
> We have a problem that the Engineer gets excluded from the
> equation and gets replaced by Contests of Nature or the Environment
> ONLY.
Because there isn't any evidence of "the Engineer". Science doesn't
allow appeal to a supernatural being, or one that leaves no evidence, as
an explanation.
> Saying that JUST the watch was with less parts gaining a part
> here or there to make the 18 is well needing of a little more piazzzz
> IMO and the world at large.
That's not the fault of science, that you, or the world at large chooses
to remain ignorant of the facts.
snip
>>> Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
>> Evolution is a viable concept. What part of of it are you not
>> understanding?
>>
> It's only a viable concept when one sees the whole picture. I don't
> think you theories offer that chance.
But you won't allow yourself to be educated. Why should your opinion
count? Who's fault is it if you won't look at the whole picture?
snip
>>> The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
>> No, at the time of Galileo, there was no "scientific community".
>> Galielo's opponents were not other scientists as science as a discipline
>> didn't really exist then. Galileo got into trouble with the Church, for
>> opposing doctrine, not for producing a new idea of how nature worked.
>>
> Well, then the Flat Earth Society.
Which also claims to be persecuted like Galileo. Do you really mean to
liken yourself to the "Flat Earthers"?
>
>
>> Furthermore, in order to put on the mantle of Galileo, you have to be
>> right. As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, and the laughed at
>> Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just being ridiculed
>> by scientists doesn't mean you are right.
>>
>
> And Newton making more contributions to the religious field than the
> scientific field doesn't make him wrong either.
No one claims that Newton was wrong, just because he advocated Alchemy,
and denied the divinity of Christ. Newton's religion is irrelevant to
the veracity of his scientific conclusions. If Newton, however had
claimed that gravity is a myth because it contradicts the Bible, few
people would have accepted his claims.
>
>>> There's lots of
>>> motivation IMO for finding how life works.
>> Which is why scientists are looking into the concept.
>>
> Which is why the motivation for much of the whole field might not be
> on a pure playing field.
Pure or not, the science tends to be self policing on this. Scientists
who are found falsifying data, or producing false claims lose their
careers, and their reputations. They don't stay long in science.
>
>
>>> Prestige and money and
>>> lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
>>> might even be satanic.
>> Sorry, but all science works without considering God, or any other
>> supernatural being. It's not "satanic" but just how science works.
>> There is no reason why God can't use the processes that scientists are
>> studying.
>>
> It should consider God.
Why? Science is not equipped to consider God, or any other supernatural
beings.
>God is just another scientific concept.
How? Can you test God? Can you place God under a microscope?
>Out
> of world engineering capablities.
any evidence of this?
> Satanism wants to rail against God
> in any shape or form in much of religious dogma.
Well, that's their right, but it's irrelevant to science. Science does
not "rail against" God, it simply doesn't deal with the concept.
> Many evolutionists
> even claim to be satanists,
Really? Care to cite a single evolutionary scientist who claims to be a
satanist?
> because it takes god out of the theory and
> elevates their's somehow.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you. Produce some support for this
claim, please.
>
>>> Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
>>> hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
>> Because of the evidence. It would be foolish to believe something is
>> false when it fits the evidence.
>>
> And how does God or creationism, 'not fit'?
Because there is no evidence for God, and Creationism is contradicted by
the evidence we do have.
>
>
>>> especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God.
>> Where do you get the idea that "morality" is unscientific? God as
>> concept is not unscientific, appeals to the supernatural as an
>> explanation for natural phenomena is unscientific.
>>
> There are sectors that believe there is no right or wrong.
Well, again that's their right, but that's not science.
> Everything
> is just cause and effect.
Again, how is this relevant to what is science.
> Therefore lying, stealing, and neutralizing
> people are just part of life, instead of making it a 'bad'.
So? Why would this be relevant to the facts of science? You are
talking philosophy here, not science. Incidentally, there are people
who seem to find lying, stealing, and "neutralizing people" to be
justified by their religious dogma.
> It may
> be that 'survival of the fittest' is without morality and is the
> scientists way of thinking for is holy grail.
What someone may believe has nothing to do with the idea that morality
is not a scientific concept. Morality is part of human interaction,
probably due to humans being social animals, which are highly dependent
on each other. The "fittest" in the above phrase does not always mean
the biggest, strongest, or most selfish. It means those which possess
traits that provide an advantage to reproductive success. For humans,
cooperation, honesty, and being just are often more likely to lead to
reproductive success than lying, stealing, or killing others.
>
>
>>> Anyway
>>> to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones soul. I
>>> am sure I am perfectly clear.
>> Clear as mud.
>>
> What do you think the Scientist would get if he caught the picture of
> life going from non-existent to existent would be?
A Nobel prize, at least. But what does that have to do with the above?
>
>
>>
>>>>>>> It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>>>>>> The same can be said for all words.
>>>>> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
>>>>> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
>>>> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
>>>> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
>>>> field they have a clear meaning.
>>> I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
>> Irrelevant. Whether or not you understand scientific jargon is not
>> relevant to whether or not a concept is true.
>>
> It maybe though the jargon is for the secret society of interpretors
> and meant not to be understood.
No, the "jargon" is to allow those in the field to communicate. It can
be understood, as long as you are willing to make an effort to understand.
>
>
>>
>>>>> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
>>>> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
>>>> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
>>>> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
>>> Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it.
>> Would it kill you to educate yourself for once?
>>
>
> So testy here.
No, just a little frustration at your continued unwillingness to learn.
> It's like people who don't take an interest in the
> hundreds of theories of life are somehow uneducated.
Well, in this case, yes. There is only one theory of how life
diversified.
> I am sorry but
> only certain sector of society can do the New York Times Saturday
> Crossword. I am one of those who occassionally accomplish that feat.
> That must mean since you probably don't, aren't as 'educated' as I am?
What it means is don't whine about "jargon" if you aren't willing to
learn what words mean. The word "allele" is a simple term to describe
a particular concept. If you enter the discussion, you need to learn
something about what you are disputing.
>
>>> It must
>>> be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
>> An allele is a particular form of a gene. Like hair color, (could be
>> red, or brown, or blond), or eye color (green, blue, brown, hazel).
>> Evolution is change in the frequency of a particular type of gene over
>> generations in a population.
>>
> Oh, that's way far up the Change ladder.
What "ladder"? A ladder is a very poor analogy for evolution. A
spreading bush is more correct.
>
>>
>>>>> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
>>>> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
>>>> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
>>> It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
>>> Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
>>> spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
>>> word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
>> The word "evolution" before Darwin used it, meant "unfolding", or how
>> events happen over time. Darwin used it to mean the change of
>> morphology in a population over time. (Darwin didn't know about genes,
>> or gene expressions)
>>
> I see, just another ghetto word...-:)
Again, if you aren't willing to learn, what's the point?
>
>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>>>> Mmmm.
>>>> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
>>>> for them.
>>>> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
>>>> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
>>> Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
>> Which tends to indicate you don't understand how words are used in the
>> English language.
>>
> Well, I will let you dawdle in your on condesceningism here. You are
> on your own.
Again, don't whine about not knowing the language if you won't take the
time and effort to learn.
DJT
wf3h
>
That number is pointed against
> life arising spontaneously, and points to Engineering.
which is a staggeringly meaningless statement.
ALL engineers work within the laws of nature. so unless your
'engineer' is nature, your statement is a contradiction. and nature is
a pretty damn fine engineer.
>
> But basically what we have that the whole world sees, is something
> 'well-packaged'. There are no missing pieces else the creature or
> organism would die or be severely hampered. People look at that and
> think and say, that since I don't see the 'in-betweens' of what my
> imagination might devise, I might as well believe that an Engineer did
> this. We have a problem that the Engineer gets excluded from the
> equation and gets replaced by Contests of Nature or the Environment
> ONLY. Saying that JUST the watch was with less parts gaining a part
> here or there to make the 18 is well needing of a little more piazzzz
> IMO and the world at large.
the reason the engineer gets 'excluded' is because we scientists have
to actually figure out HOW do to something rather than just saying, as
creationists did for thousands of years 'god did it'.
since 'god' is a meaningless idea in science,scientists are left with
the tough work of doing research. creationists are the parasites who
feed off the work scientists do. they sit around and harumph, pushing
their failed notion of 'god did it'.
of course, that has a 100% track record of failure. that's why they
like it so much.
>
>
wf3h
> > > It has to be a viable theory which it isn't.
>
> > Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution is viable and has withstood the
> > test of time with no serious flaws.
>
> How long are you going to dance with generalizations that assume what
> the contention is? Change has to have a specific direction.
?? really? evolutionary change is driven by differential reproduction.
The
> coming to a T in the road is as commonplace as the roads that are
> devised. One picks one way the other, the other way. People will
> make tremendous assumptions with one particular fossil find, like in
> the chimp or human family. The world wants more proof than a handful
> of bones to make that viable.
what 'world' are you talking about?
>
> > You keep saying the same false things over and over no matter how
> > much I or others explain them to you.
>
> I only ASK the questions and PROBE. You assume that since I believe
> in God, that I am somehow FALSE. But that is so usual for the
> evolutionist crowd\\
since many evolutionary biologists are christians, one can see here
the paranoia that creationism causes. he automatically assumes
scientists are atheists.
God is not scientific, therefore God doesn't
> exist.
well you guys said it. creationists routinely insist that god is
scientifically provable, so any scientific concept that doesn't
include god must be being pushed by atheists.
it's the no true scotsman fallacy....'only creationism is true so
those xtians who accept evolution can't be xtians because xtians dont
accept evolution'.
if YOU are stupid enough to try and stuff your god in a test tube,
don't be surprised if someone puts him to the test....and dont be
surprised when you FAIL and people therefore say YOUR god doesnt
exist.
it's YOUR fault.
God can't exist because there must be some other explanation
> that we could scenarioize or find. And noone is explaining anything.
> They are just throwing generalized theory and hoping it sticks. They
> have heard it for so long, that it has already 'stuck' for them.
that's a problem of YOUR doing. for thousands of years creationists
tried to turn god into a magician. 'god did it'. 'god causes the wind;
god causes the rain; god causes the stars to shine'
and it turns out he NEVER did so. when we find the causes of natural
events, they're always natural.
but creationists whine like frightened puppies that 'god did it' isn't
given a fair chance.
>
> But you don't even opine to how it existed and by what means. Did it
> come with seeds? Did it come with a will to wiggle and move on? Did
> it come with sexual urges? Did the sexual urges have meaning when
> there were no sex organs? Common sense says, "he who created them,
> created them male and female."
ROFLMAO!! few things are less common than 'common sense'. no one
'created' anything. the evidence supports evolution.
>
> > Except evolution says nothing about any gods or lifestyles. You are
> > terribly confused if you think it does.
>
> It does by some evolutionists. They might not be of your sect, but
> you should monitor them closely.
well, no it doesn't. the only 'gods' addressed by evolution are those
put there by creationists who insist their 'god' put 'purpose' into
nature. it's YOUR doing, not that of scientists.
evolution is as godless as chemistry or physics.
the more i see creationists' arguments, the lest respect i have for
religion.
hhya...@gmail.com
Curtjester is bend on no buying any argument or process of progress
involving evolution.
He is trying just to hook for something that can align to his belief.
Such thing as missing steps or still under investigation would lend
him pleasure of redicule.
He does not, on the other hand, think that "goddit" being a type of
shit phenomena.
moxm...@gmail.com
>
> How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved? We
> don't even use 5% of our brains now. It has so much storage
> capability (a definite sign that it was made...just like computers are
> made), that evolution to be true must not only emerge things, it must
> plan way ahead for the next creature. Talk about science fiction.
The idea that we only use 5% or 10% of our brains is an urban legend.
We use 100% of our brains, it's just not all active at the same time.
Different parts have different functions.
wf3h
>
>
> The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
and the religious community wanted to kill him.
There's lots of
> motivation IMO for finding how life works. Prestige and money and
> lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
> might even be satanic.
why consider god? where is god in chemistry? in physics?
and for thousands of years you religious folks called EVERYTHING
'satanic'. jews...gays...hell, even autopsies were considered
'tinkering with god's handiwork'.
that attitude is a reason why christianity impeded western
civilization for 1500 years.
Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
> hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
> especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God.
morality is as scientific as ballet dancing is. why do you fundies
ALWAYS insist on pushing ideas out of their natural limits? morality
is not science. ballet dancing is not science. poetry is not science
get over it.
wf3h
> >
> Oh it does, and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere. Interestingly, the
> name and word Jehovah means He who causes to be. Like I say,
> evolution talk gets anamored with the environment and its
> contestings. That is a narrow parameter to only consider.
and that's why science has been so successful...it's very narrow.
creationists, being fundies, want science to encompass religion, and
to be seen as religion
it's not. it's VERY narrow and focused.
There
> always has to be some battle that this creature is secretly fighting,
> so that they can 'improve'. Again evolution is basically a
> meaningless word only hidden to describe ones version of change.
we scientists don't think so. you religious folks are free to put
words in our mouths, but they're still YOUR words, not ours.
>
> > It has already been proved. Creationists like yourself just will not
> > look at the evidence.
>
> It hasn't even been defined much less 'proved'. And proving change
> does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate creationism from being
> considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
creationism hasn't been science for over 150 years. creationism is a
dead idea since there's no way to test 'god did it' in a meaningful
manner.
> >
> > So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> > created out of dirt by a god.
>
> Show a brain evolving. Just because one can't pinpoint an event in
> history doesn't mean it couldn't of happened.
the fossil record shows evolution. laboratory work shoes evolution
we've NEVER...not once..seen a supernatural event happen. ever.
supernaturalism is the most successful failure in history. it has a
100% track record of failure.
>
> > >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
>
> Oh, they may 'attempt' to answer it. They might say the clitoris was
> formerly a penis. Or they might say the clitoris was just a way
> nature has to turn itself so humans could multiply faster. See how
> scenarios are a dime a dozen? Why not say God created a clitoris for
> sexual pleasure?
why not use that idea to tell us why the stars shine? or how the
planets move? or what causes disease?
the problem is that THAT answer is useless. you can use it for
ANYTHING. and people did. it's why xtianity stopped science dead in
its tracks for 1500 years.
>
> But they should have a link, shouldn't they? And if you can't define
> a link between them, then what good is just one little avenue of
> change going to do for an overall theory? Of course that's just
> another theory, that God made the ingredients to begin with, and just
> let them play out.
>
and evolution is one of those ingredients. it's science. creationism
is not.
Iain
Yes, Creationists often use a slew of definitions when referring to
"evolution".
~Iain
Iain
"might not adapt"? What do you mean? I can't think of a sense in which
that makes sense. And what "givens"?
All individuals are mis-copies of their parents. That's why every
individual is genetically unique.
The serendipitous question to is ask is, why doesn't this continual
miscopying career off in some random direction?
Answer: Each generation, the cross-section of the population who
reproduce, is made up of those individuals who are suited to reproduce
under those _particular_ circumstances.
Because generation-to-generation circumtances are mostly only
*slightly* different, and generation-to-generation miscopying is
always slight -- the evolution of the species is being smoothly
*steered* by the environment.
There's no "might not adapt" about it -- unless extinction occurs(the
environment changes quicker than the species can adapt).
~Iain
Grandbank
>
> You're very condescending.
Well when you put out little gems like "I never listened to any debate
before making my decision" you're going to get that.
Try listening, if it's not too late.
KP
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Common descent is a given. Evolution states basically that everything
is an ancestor or another theory might state that certain things are
ancestors. Creationism has multiple theories too, but Biblical
Creation has barriers of what could possible be considered common
descents, and God being the Engineer of all those barrier categories.
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:352cfd29-f3d2-4309...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 4:15 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d58459d7-ce33-446d...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 12 Dec, 21:38, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:916dd6df-543c-4a1f...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On 12 Dec, 14:27, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > has to do whether life was created from a sources or sources
> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> > than what existed before the earth or it's contents.
> >> >> >> So now you have humans evolving in outer space?
>
> >> >> That's what YOU claimed!
>
> >> > That's what a large segment of earth's human population claims.
>
> >> They claim we evolved in outer space where this god also evolved?
>
> > Who cares about your weird question, they believe God is a meaningful
> > entity that is instrumental in earths affairs.
>
> Is that why this god allowed millions of innocent people to be murdered in
> Germany?
>
account or a moral dilemma to excuse myself from an Engineer in the
possibilty of Creation.
You could have asked why anybody dies, or why all atrocities by man go
on? All Christians can possibly say, is that we are here to do the
opposite of those atrocious things and wait til the time God predicted
that his earth won't allow for it.
>
>
> >> >> We evolved as did all other life on earth.
>
> >> > Evolved from what?
>
> >> What do you think? Have you read the sites you were provided? If so you
> >> would already know the answer.
>
> > A one word or two word answer would have done, or maybe a little
> > phrase. You can't reguritate your site crutch?
>
> Why don't you answer questions? Why do you demand other people type pages
> and pages in reply to you? All you do is send them to idiotic religious
> sites written by bible thumping dingbats.
>
Can't get into the Engineering thing I see.
> Snip the same old BS from you that you repeat endlessly like a broken
> record. Come back when you have evidence of gods amd demon
> monsters.........- Hide quoted text -
>
It's about complex life, and being reasonable about it's existence.
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I don't find it threatening other than it dominates a school
ciricculum that doesn't seem to allow for dissenting points of view.
I do believe in change, and change is not necessarily environment
sponsored all in its own.
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Because things don't work when the product is not complete. How are
things going to get going if they don't have sex organs at the onset?
It just doesn't work. If you take a watch and take out a component
the watch doesn't tell time. It's harder to believe that without
hearing, without a mind, without sex organs, without a desire for
nourishment, that somehow time 'took care' of everything. It's not
only illogical, it's ridiculous.
Can you find in history when things weren't all in tact that would
make a feasible way of making something going from one generation to
the next?
CJ
Kathy
> On 15 Dec, 18:24, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c1b799e6-c12d-4e39...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > But it might not have adapted if not having been given numerous
>> > 'givens'.
>>
>> Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening to your beliefs of
>> the supernatural, in gods and in demons?
>
> I don't find it threatening other than it dominates a school
Why shouldn't it? Do you expect schools to teach religion and myth as
science? Religion belongs in the home and churches, not science classes in
the schools.
> ....that doesn't seem to allow for dissenting points of view.
There are no scientific dissenting points of view. You have SCIENCE and you
have RELIGION.
> I do believe in change, and change is not necessarily environment
> sponsored all in its own.
What you and other fundies believe is irrelevant. The schools teach the
truth of what has been found so far concerning life on earth. If you want
your children to learn religion and superstition, teach them that at home
and in church.
>
> CJ
>
Kathy
> On 15 Dec, 18:30, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Which means you believe everyone just *POPPED* into existence one day
>> when a
>> god decided he needed some new pets to worship him? That man suddenly
>> appeared as he is today? And your scientific and physical evidence for
>> this
>> is.......????
> Because things don't work when the product is not complete. How are
> things going to get going if they don't have sex organs at the onset?
You should have learned this is junior high school. How do you think
bacteria and fungi reproduce without sex organs? Were you home schooled by
a fundy mother? How about answering some questions other people ask for a
change?
> It just doesn't work. If you take a watch and take out a component
> the watch doesn't tell time. It's harder to believe that without
> hearing, without a mind, without sex organs, without a desire for
> nourishment, that somehow time 'took care' of everything. It's not
> only illogical, it's ridiculous.
That just shows your utter ignorance of what is know about evolution. You
refuse to learn anything. There is nothing more ridiculous as a sky daddy
suddenly creating a universe from nothing, then creating a load of animals
that are so defective they die of parasites, genetic diseases,
viruses......... how dense and stupid can you be? Were you home schooled
by a fundy mother? How about answering some questions other people ask for
a change? Why do you constantly refuse to answer questions?
>
> Can you find in history when things weren't all in tact that would
> make a feasible way of making something going from one generation to
> the next?
Start with simple bacteria.... they multiply like crazy with no sex organs.
Now please answer the questions above. And also answer why you refuse to
learn about evolution and only read Creation sites.
>
> CJ
>
curtjester1
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:19:40 -0800 (PST), curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <news:5587a92d-b7fc-402f...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >> > It has to be a viable theory which it isn't.
>
> >> Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution is viable and has withstood the
> >> test of time with no serious flaws.
>
> > How long are you going to dance with generalizations that assume what
> > the contention is? Change has to have a specific direction. The
> > coming to a T in the road is as commonplace as the roads that are
> > devised. One picks one way the other, the other way. People will
> > make tremendous assumptions with one particular fossil find, like in
> > the chimp or human family. The world wants more proof than a handful
> > of bones to make that viable.
>
> There's already plenty of proof. Much more than "a handful of bones."
> There are thousands of fossils scientists have studied that provide
> more than enough proof of evolution.
>
fill up your garage. It's so sad to see that all these images I could
see going between a human and an ape, which would be so many 'layers',
and not one of them getting to show up. They have to come up with
these convuluted theories like they all got swallowed up like the
dinasaurs, or we just haven't picked the right spot yet. There should
be TRILLIONS and GAZILLIONS of bones like that even if bones tend to
dissolve.
> > There should be thousands, millions, or billions of those fused species
> > over the standard millions of years concept that evolutionists seemed
> > to have been trained in.
>
> Wrong again. Not every bone becomes a fossil. It's actually pretty
> rare for one to become a fossil.
>
> > Nobody argues that change exists, it's just the directions and the
> > definitions one concludes from them.
>
> Only religious people who wish to stay ignorant of evolution because
> they want to believe it's against their religion argues that.
>
You take it to religious people dogma. Why don't you just show us
change and direction?
> >> > It's like proving by steps the algebraic formula. You get part of
> >> > the way through, and say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
>
> >> So why do you insist on only learning part of evolutionary theory?
> >> You're already getting an F for comprehension.
>
> > Mindless teenage spittle. It's like see, I have this really neat
> > theory, and well in my opinion, it's actually 'TRUE'. And I compare
> > with my unpenetratable shield to make these grades and wild
> > assertions.
>
> That certainly describes religion. But not evolutionary science.
>
Evolution will change the earth by tremendous proportions to show what
must have been when. How can one be so gullible to trust the millions
of scenarios?
> >> >> > Especially when that should be the MOST and EASIEST of all life
> >> >> > detection changes. The little insignificant thing should
> >> >> > be seen at all times. Of course the 'hidden theory' is just a
> >> >> > necessity on The Change Theory's part.
>
> >> >> You're very confused. As long as there is life, evolution applies.
> >> >> If there is no life, there is no evolution. It's as simple as that.
>
> >> > You're very condescending. But that is the usual way for an
> >> > evolutionist that has something to answer for. A little deft slide to
> >> > the side, and make a general ad hominem. Your simple little statement
> >> > needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> >> > proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> >> > huff and puff.
>
> >> You keep saying the same false things over and over no matter how
> >> much I or others explain them to you.
>
> > I only ASK the questions and PROBE. You assume that since I believe
> > in God, that I am somehow FALSE.
>
> Wrong again. I know that your statements are false because I know
> the facts and can see the fallacies you're making. If you learned
> even the little bit of evolutionary science that I have, you would
> see how silly you sound.
>
You pretend your the Seer. Most people believe in God because things
are in order and the life forms are well-packaged. If you can't make
a dent into that, you might as well going to another Scenario
Convention for more repetoirre.
> > But that is so usual for the evolutionist crowd. God is not
> > scientific, therefore God doesn't exist. God can't exist because
> > there must be some other explanation that we could scenarioize or
> > find. And noone is explaining anything. They are just throwing
> > generalized theory and hoping it sticks. They have heard it for so
> > long, that it has already 'stuck' for them.
>
> Wrong again. You're once again confusing religion with science.
> Scientists test things to see if they're true or not. Religionists
> throw generalized theory and make it stick by telling people they
> will go to hell if they don't believe it. Religion is what says
> that since it's been that way for so long it must be true.
>
You scenaoize the species, and don't even make a dent in the body
parts. Somehow you will believe that something with no eyes, and no
brain, was just smart enough to think there way through niftily to get
things done. Reasonable people know better.
> >> >> >> > and why shouldn't 'it' go further? First cause should be
> >> >> >> > the most prevalent, and should be seen everywhere.
>
> >> >> >> "First cause" only needs to happen once. And it did. No matter how you
> >> >> >> think it came about.
>
> >> >> > Once or more. Very narrow thinking.
>
> >> >> Once it happens there is no need for it to happen again. That is a
> >> >> simple fact.
>
> >> > How do you know "there is no need"?
>
> >> Because life already exists at that point.
>
> > But you don't even opine to how it existed and by what means.
>
> There's no need. The fact is that it's here, unless you want to
> dispute that.
>
But you don't define what was here, and when. It's just an 'it'.
What is 'it'?
> > Did it come with seeds? Did it come with a will to wiggle and move on?
> > Did it come with sexual urges? Did the sexual urges have meaning when
> > there were no sex organs? Common sense says, "he who created them,
> > created them male and female." Came with a complete backage of
> > batter, gratifcation points, correct plumbing, and a whole battery of
> > systems to back them up, like brains, eyeballs, logic factors.......ad
> > nauseum...hundreds more....
>
> Just because you believe that doesn't make it true. It is a fact that
> life evolved. It has been observed both long and short term. Nobody
> has ever been able to refute that fact. If you want to believe it
> happened another way, you're welcome to it, but don't think anyone
> else is going to take your word for it.
>
Believe what? What has been observed long and short term about body
parts? Do you believe the giraffe's neck grew because it couldn't
stand just getting the low food?
> >> > Such a generalization with so many possibilites and you answer it
> >> > like you grabbed a little piece a paper from a box of CrackerJacks.
>
> >> That's basically what your understanding of evolution amounts to.
>
> > Condescendation is your only ally.
>
> You forgot facts and reality.
>
Facts are irrefutable. There is nothing that suggests that you are
dispensing facts.
Oh it isn't? I suggest you don't know anything about what communism
is, nor what Keynesian economics is.
> >> >> > It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
>
> >> >> The same can be said for all words.
>
> >> > Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> >> > just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
> >> > The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
> >> > That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean. The
> >> > theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
>
> >> Many words have more than one meaning, but we are discussing the
> >> evolution of living things and the Theory of Evolution.
>
> > Of course, but that attempted defining of 'A' theory has many
> > definitions from many differing outlooks.
>
> For scientists it has one specific definition.
>
For your club, not for science, and not for the general population.
> >> >> > If they could just use the word change and eliminate evolution well
> >> >> > it would be more concise, but it would through their whole equilibriums
> >> >> > off.
>
> >> >> Because it would not be precise enough.
>
> >> > Just AS precise as evolution if not more.
>
> >> Wrong again. It would be less precise.
>
> > Elaboration is not your strong suit.
>
> Why should I elaborate when you would just ignore what I say and continue
> to make the same erroneous statements? I don't have all day to sit
> around and make detailed replies to every one of your false statements.
>
Just look at it as a blackboard, and your theory goes on like an
evolutionary generation. We are just calling your bluff, and telling
you to get specific on things going through 'your' process. People in
general are very happy seeing the nice packaging, and assuming that
something Big and Great doing it, and not blind chance over time.
> >> >> >> > After awhile listened to enough it just becomes a mantraed 'fact'.
>
> >> >> >> No, you're confusing science with religion.
>
> >> >> > No I am not confusing the religion evolution with some other confusing
> >> >> > religions.
>
> >> >> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
> >> > Evolution doesn't want to be a religion,
>
> >> Evolution is not a religion. It is scientific fact.
>
> > If you say it one million more times, you won't be detracted ever.
>
> I only repeat facts.
>
And if I could say that was just only your first lie.
> >> > but when it comes to the subjective definition it presents, and
> >> > follows a pattern of lifestyle which opines about God or creation,
> >> > then it is just another religion (lifestyle) that is present in world
> >> > societies.
>
> >> Except evolution says nothing about any gods or lifestyles. You are
> >> terribly confused if you think it does.
>
> > It does by some evolutionists. They might not be of your sect, but
> > you should monitor them closely.
>
> Wrong again. Evolution has never said anything about any gods or
> lifestyles. That is left strictly to religion.
>
If God created say the physics within molecular structures, how viable
a theory could evolution become?
No, even though I don't particulary go along with the twenty question,
I do see them as general stumbling blocks for evolutionary theory.
The only secret in keeping things secret is the evasiveness for their
theory. There's lots of water and heat and dirt around, we should see
some evolution happening. We, sadly, just don't.
> >> >> >> > And proving change does not in any shape or form doesn't relegate
> >> >> >> > creationism from being considered in the equation, unless one want's to.
>
> >> >> >> It depends on what you mean by "creationism." Some people define it as
> >> >> >> the world having suddenly been blinked into existence 6,000 years ago
> >> >> >> with the plants and animals more or less like they are today. Science
> >> >> >> definitely refutes that. However, if you're merely talking about
> >> >> >> abiogenesis (which is not evolution and should not be confused with it),
> >> >> >> Nobody knows how the universe came to be all those billions of years
> >> >> >> ago, so if you want to say a god did it, be my guest.
>
> >> >> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> >> >> Stupid people are often bored by facts.
>
> >> > Redundancy is not as profound as you might think.
>
> >> But it seems to be necessary when talking to you.
>
> > Arrogance sometimes has no bounds.
>
> Ignorance never has any bounds.
>
Then bow down to the One who gave you and everthing else life.
> >> >> >> >> >> > On that alone it shouldn't be 'unusual' for people to think that a
> >> >> >> >> >> > Creator must have done it.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Because our brains have evolved enough to wonder where we came from and
> >> >> >> >> >> invent a god who did it all. Isn't that ironic?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Not that intactly made brains couldn't do the same thing, huh?
>
> >> >> >> >> So show me one instance where it has been observed that a man has been
> >> >> >> >> created out of dirt by a god.
>
> >> >> >> > Show a brain evolving.
>
> >> >> >>http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
> >> >> >>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
>
> >> >> > You expect anybody to believe it? Just tell us.
>
> >> >> You asked for information and I gave it to you.
>
> >> > How do you expect anyone to believe that a brain has evolved?
>
> >> Because it has. Ancestors of homo sapiens had a smaller cranial
> >> capacity, indicating smaller, less developed brains.
>
> > Less developed, how? Bigger has more knowledge capabilities. How
> > about people with small heads now that are in say Mensa? How about
> > people that are generally bigger over the last century because of more
> > proficient nutrition habits. They are smarter now? You have GOT to
> > be kidding?!
>
> Once again, you have misunderstood. Human beings have cranial capacities
> that fall within a range. Ancestors of humans had cranial capacities
> that were substantially less.
>
And that means exactly what?
> >> > We don't even use 5% of our brains now.
>
> >> You may not, but the rest of us use 100% of our brains.
>
> > Not only scientifically incorrect,
>
> Wrong again. It is very correct. We do not only use 5% or 10% of
> our brains. Human beings use the full 100% as has been proven over
> and over in lab experiments.
>
Brains are filled with storage and we don't come even a nanometer of
coming close to the storage capabilities. And we forget most of the
things we learn in a day. You can watch Jeopardy on tv, and see that
these people aren't particularly more brilliant than the rest of the
population. Don't you think if they lived a thousand years, that they
wouldn't be Super Champions?
> > it is very condescending. Of course we know these sites usually
> > have agendas, and people tend to cheerlead for their choices, but
> > I was warned that they do get militant. I am beginning to agree.
>
> Do you think that labeling facts as "militant" means they're wrong?
>
facts are facts, and being militant is for the most part a behavior
moral dilemma.
> >> > It has so much storage capability (a definite sign that it was
> >> > made...just like computers are made), that evolution to be true must
> >> > not only emerge things, it must plan way ahead for the next creature.
> >> > Talk about science fiction.
>
> >> Wrong again. Evolution does
>
> > Many people are swayed in the science community alone that the brain
> > could have never evolved, that it had to have been created.
>
> Are these scientists evolutionary biologists? Some scientists make
> statements about things they know nothing about and aren't in their
> field. Most of the time it's because they have a religion that they
> want to protect.
>
I am afraid there are books full of those in the scientific field who
are not in agreement with the slow change theory.
CJ
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > On 14 Dec, 17:48, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >>>>> It has to be a viable theory which it isn't. It's like proving by
> >>>>> steps the algebraic formula. You get part of the way through, and
> >>>>> say, I can't. You would get an F for that.
> >>>> Why? You assert this, but you offer no reason to think so.
> >>> Because if you have been following the thread, the Opiner goes into
> >>> first cause as being One, and that is somehow another science that
> >>> doesn't necessarily connect to 'his' science. I am saying if you
> >>> aren't going to connect the two you are somehow lacking and
> >>> 'unviable'.
> >> Why? If one doesn't know how life started, one can still learn a great
> >> deal about how it diversified.
>
> > Can they?,
>
> Yes.
>
> > or is that just your, or just another theory?
>
> A theory is all it needs to be.
>
> > Maybe
> > everything that causes change was in that first move from lifelessness
> > to life.
>
> Maybe, but the evidence right now shows that it's not necessary to
> assume that.
>
I would tend to assume the opposite. A lot assume that the little
stuff or the beginning stuff wasn't too complicated anyway. How can
they be so sure?
>
>
> >>> But since I know that you can't, I don't expect you too,
> >>> but I do expect unspecific ways of sidestepping which I have been a
> >>> witness to abundantly.
> >> There is no "sidestep". Evolution doesn't deal with how life began.
>
> > Because, it 'can't', 'won't, or can't even control it's own definition
> > of itself?
>
> No, because it's beyond the scope of the theory. Evolution doesn't
> explain why the sky is blue, or why it always rains when you plan a
> picnic, either.
>
But having rain might be just a cause for having a Creator involved.
Too much rain, no life, too little no life. How could the luck be
just the right exact mixture, and why do the products like rain? Was
there life without rain?
>
>
> >>>> It wouldn't matter if the first life was dropped on Earth by aliens,
> >>>> developed by local and natural processes, showed up by leaking thru a
> >>>> space-time rift, or was created magically by some diety or other.
> >>> Yes it might, since it could have been in huge accomplished forms that
> >>> could negate all the eons and imagination for a 'cool' evolutionary
> >>> theory.
> >> Whether or not evolution is "cool" it's been observed.
>
> > Change can be very mundane if it's long on theory and short on
> > specifics.
>
> lucky then that evolutionary theory is long on specifics.
>
Specific facts, or seemingly specific scenarios?
>
>
> >>>> Once we had self-replicating organisms, with inheritable traits and
> >>>> imperfect replication, then evolution was inevitable.
> >>> Once "we had"??!! When did you have?
> >> According to the evidence, somewhere between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years
> >> ago. Exactly how life began is under investigation, but currently
> >> unknown.
>
> > Of course there are millions of questions that surround self-
> > replicating organisms.
>
> Yep, and they are being investigated by scientists.
>
Seems they would have to have a need to even replicate. I would think
that most life in that genre would not 'give a hoot' and just frolic
without their brains...but no....we need a 'nice scenario'...to 'make
it fit'...don't we?
> > I think I touched on that just a few minutes
> > ago in another answer with all the 'what came first the sexual desire
> > or the procreation' analogies.
>
> Procreation came long before sexual desire.
>
Doesn't really make sense, and yet these 'facts' just roll off the
tongue.
>
>
> >>> It's like saying that given
> >>> situation that we can't prove is taken for granted our little pet
> >>> theory can now proceed.
> >> Yes, and what's wrong with that? Do you dispute that life began? If
> >> so, why?
>
> > Sure we can dispute a life beganning.
>
> So, are you prepared to say that life does not exist?
>
No, just about it's beginnings.
> > We can say all the elements
> > that existed on earth existed prior, as we now know matter cannot be
> > created nor destroyed -- Einstein.
>
> Right, by our current understandings of physics.
>
So if we say if a God rearranged them, we couldn't be totally off base
yet? And if God always had elements, we wouldn't totally be off base
yet?
> > All we have here was here before,
> > just rearranged.
>
> Yes, so? We know the the universe existed for billions of years before
> the Earth formed.
>
I think that might be controversial, but what ever a universe might
entail, I think of ingredients existing.
> > So now we can say whether it started on earth or
> > elsewhere, is basically up for grabs.
>
> Sure. But not really relevant to evolution.
>
Why not?
> > If elsewhere, then we can we
> > say how it got transported to earth as being real or important?
>
> I suppose, although comets or meteorites are good candidates.
>
Or from highly developed brains, or seed Engineers...lots of
candidates.
> > Most
> > will assume that since there were nice things like water and heat,
> > that it was 'ripe' for life. But isn't that just being
> > presumptuous?
>
> Not really. Why would say that?
>
Because we have lots of heat and water now, and if it's going on, it's
hidden. Much more profound if we can see it instead of theorize it,
isn't it?
>
>
> >>> Your taking liberties beyond any bounds is
> >>> what is seemingly inevitable.
> >> Once there is life, evolution happens, because life does not reproduce
> >> perfectly. What is "out of bounds" about that?
>
> > But getting to the point of life must be terribly complex and would I
> > think give the blueprint for many of the scenarios of evolution,
>
> Even if it were "terribly complex" so what? Are you assuming that
> nature doesn't do complex? Why would you assume that any of the
> abiogenesis scenarios were evolution, which deals with already working
> life forms?
>
I don't see the simple going to the complex. It would be better if we
did, or had it shown to us.
> > eliminating lots of them with what would be 'now' known. It's out of
> > bounds in that you don't know if everything came complete,
>
> possible, but highly unlikely.
>
Unlikely?, but when do we not see it complete?
> > or if all
> > the seeds were in place,
>
> Chemical studies about the make up of the early Earth suggest they were.
>
But I think if it didn't have all this enormous blueprint within the
little seedling, then nothing would be possible, yet why does it
'have' to be in the seedling? It just seems that it was 'better' that
way, but an Engineer has the nod over the Chance Process, IMO.
> > or if amoebas were accidental or well-
> > planned.
>
> Amoebae are not the simplest life forms. They are eukaryote cells which
> probably took millions of years to evolve from the earliest life.
> Modern ameobae are the result of billions of years of evolution, just
> like all other modern life. There is no reason to assume that amoebae
> were either "accidental" or "well planned".
>
I'll pass on this one.
> > There is like Mr.Sagan says, billions, and billions of
> > factors that you do not know.
>
> and until one looks, one will never known. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't
> allow any chance of finding out.
>
Quite contrare. I think even if my religious beliefs were to be
correct and man lives here forever, I think tons of time will be
devoted to nature and figuring out 'its ways'.
> > Many scientists have given the
> > possibilites necessary for life assigned numbers, and to get one piece
> > of life, it would take a google of nth degrees of ingredient
> > parlayings to get life.
>
> Citations for this, please.
>
I'll have to keep this one in mind. I think the cutoff point for
scientists is 10 to the 30th power, where odds become too redundant to
have chance be worthy. I believe it was in my 'Did Life Get Here By
Evoltion Or Creation' book, which took the time to allow the
scientists to express themselves, statistically.
> > And they do have numbers of google where it
> > is beyond unlikely or beyond luck. That number is pointed against
> > life arising spontaneously, and points to Engineering.
>
> Only if you are assuming that life came together all at once. That
> would be highly unlikely. That's why scientists working on abiogenesis
> believe it took a very long time, maybe millions of years for the right
> combination to happen.
>
And of course they might be trying to explain that, as well as why it
could have been here and disappeared. And again, I must reinforce,
that if evolution or whatever your going to define it as, can't bee
more visible, then why expect regular earthlings to be so enamored
with it's theory or involving itself with it's theory?
> snip
>
> >>> Well you leave me out of THAT thread.
> >> Yeah, why bother to learn anything?
>
> > Like you have, that will offer any gem of truth to have people flock
> > to your little club's sites?
>
> What's wrong with learning?
>
Learning is good for most and people do thrive on it, but selective
spheres of learning are just that, and with only a few years of
life..... That's why people do good on a few subjects in Jeopardy,
and take a nose dive on others. What's something 'good to learn' is
what I think your trying to say? I really don't have enough from your
field to be swayed much less get real hyped up about it.
>
>
> >> And I have no idea what you are
>
> >>> truly 'asserting'.
> >> The true assertions above were: "You're very confused." ,"As long as
> >> there is life, evolution applies." and, "If there is no life, there is
> >> no evolution". Does that help you? There were no ad hominems above.
>
> > It only adds to the redundancy, of assuming what you are trying to
> > prove with not much in the way of profoundness IMO.
>
> Where have I made any such assumption? And why should your opinion
> count, if you aren't willing to become educated?
>
Educated in your 'genre'? I do quite well in NY Times Xword puzzles.
Not many will tackle them towards Saturday. I am far from a lower
IQ'd person. I just don't think you have a viable field, 'yet'.
>
>
> >>>>> Your simple little statement
> >>>>> needs proof. Stating over and over again by assuming what needs to be
> >>>>> proved is not going to give you any more ooomph, no matter how you
> >>>>> huff and puff.
> >>>> Read a textbook on evolutionary science. If you are disinclined, look
> >>>> up "theory of evolution" in Wikipedia. The people who do it agree on
> >>>> what it's nature is. You could even try reading the original version
> >>>> in Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not a difficult read, but it
> >>>> probably exceeds your attention span.
> >>> Why read a book on a speculative, subjective science that has a
> >>> million scenarios?
> >> In order to learn. Evolution, by the way is not "speculative", or
> >> "subjective".
>
> > Do you know how many evolution theories there are, as well as creation
> > theories, as well as a combination of the two theories?
>
> As far as the basics of evolution,as science, only one. There are no
> "creation theories", only creation stories.
>
You're confusing religious events that are not just sticking to
creation theories. You would be surprised to find how many there are,
and they are lots, not one.
>
>
> >>> Why don't YOU just tell me how logical and
> >>> practical it is,
> >> Evolution is very logical, and very practical. But you could learn that
> >> for yourself, rather than depending on my, or anyone else's say so.
>
> > I find it arrogant and self-assuming, yet I find changes in nature
> > interesting.
>
> Again, why should your opinion count, as you won't educate yourself?
>
I would rather find out the physics of the golf ball landing on a
specific islanded area a furlong away close to a target, and looking
for 'life arisings' in those specific terrains beyond the white
markers.
>
>
> >>> like out throught the dirt this bacteria with a motor
> >>> was pushing the little green stalk thing?
> >> Sorry, this does not parse. What exactly are you talking about? What
> >> does "throught" mean? What "bacteria with a motor"? What "little
> >> green stalk thing"?
>
> > Ooops, I should have dropped that last t. Its just a mindless
> > scenario but the fact remains that specifics are what your theories
> > lack.
>
> Do you mean how the bacterial flagellum formed? That is not yet known,
> but it's being investigated. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't get you any
> closer to knowing.
>
Yeah, but those little insignificant life forms seem to have quite a
bit of complexity and 'development' already. I haven't found anything
really what one would call simple yet. And why is that so?
> > I was just saying about the bacteria which science says has a
> > clever little motoring device, would be doing like pushing up a green
> > thing to help the evolutionary cause along. That's all.
>
> The "clever little motoring device" appears to be an evolutionary
> adaptation of another type of bacterial structure. What "green thing"
> are you talking about?
>
Gee a Chevy engine from a Ford and they had a brotherhood. And then
they teemed up with Jack and The Beanstalks little cousin. How
convenient, anyway.
>
>
> >>>> You may as well be asserting that astronomy must explain the weather,
> >>>> or chemistry must explain how Latin evolved into French in Gaul. It's
> >>>> embarrassing, and one wonders why you think that a theory "must be"
> >>>> about something it's not. Now, if you wish to claim that the ToE must
> >>>> explain life's origins in order to be credible, that's another matter
> >>>> entirely. Feel free to justify it.
> >>> I think I used the watch. Say it has 18 components. If one component
> >>> is missing, the watch never tells time. Thus, anything needing a
> >>> viable life must have had good components, and none should be missing
> >>> else it could never be viable.
> >> This is Paley's "argument from design" intermingled with Behe's
> >> "Irreducible Complexity". The mistake is in assuming that evolution can
> >> only add parts to a system, and that all parts have to have the same
> >> function. A watch with missing parts can be useful as something other
> >> than a timepiece. Cells, for example are very complex, but they are
> >> not "irreducibly" so. Eukaryote cells are more complex than bacteria,
> >> which are more complex than the first self replicating life forms, which
> >> were more complex than viruses, etc. etc...
>
> > But basically what we have that the whole world sees, is something
> > 'well-packaged'.
>
> By natural processes.
>
Why doesn't it become 'sloppy' and 'chaotic'?
> > There are no missing pieces else the creature or
> > organism would die or be severely hampered.
>
> However that doesn't mean those parts were formed just by adding them.
> Evolution does more than simply add on. Parts change in function,
> they can be added, or subtracted. The organism's predecessors may have
> had a slightly different structure which was co-opted to do something
> else in the modern organism.
>
Or none of the above. Maybe they just had all the complex parts to
begin with, and they just got eliminated somehow.
> > People look at that and
> > think and say, that since I don't see the 'in-betweens' of what my
> > imagination might devise, I might as well believe that an Engineer did
> > this.
>
> Which is a fallacy, known as "argument from ignorance". Someone may
> not see the "in between" steps, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
>
Or arguments out of "hope"?
> > We have a problem that the Engineer gets excluded from the
> > equation and gets replaced by Contests of Nature or the Environment
> > ONLY.
>
> Because there isn't any evidence of "the Engineer". Science doesn't
> allow appeal to a supernatural being, or one that leaves no evidence, as
> an explanation.
>
I think the Periodical Chart was Engineered.
> > Saying that JUST the watch was with less parts gaining a part
> > here or there to make the 18 is well needing of a little more piazzzz
> > IMO and the world at large.
>
> That's not the fault of science, that you, or the world at large chooses
> to remain ignorant of the facts.
>
They know that the cockroach is going to win, and that the cockroach
is not likely to become human over time.
> snip
>
> >>> Yeah, but your assuming 'the house' is a viable evolutionary concept.
> >> Evolution is a viable concept. What part of of it are you not
> >> understanding?
>
> > It's only a viable concept when one sees the whole picture. I don't
> > think you theories offer that chance.
>
> But you won't allow yourself to be educated. Why should your opinion
> count? Who's fault is it if you won't look at the whole picture?
>
Just waiting for those profound snippets.
> snip
>
> >>> The scientific community laughed at Galileo.
> >> No, at the time of Galileo, there was no "scientific community".
> >> Galielo's opponents were not other scientists as science as a discipline
> >> didn't really exist then. Galileo got into trouble with the Church, for
> >> opposing doctrine, not for producing a new idea of how nature worked.
>
> > Well, then the Flat Earth Society.
>
> Which also claims to be persecuted like Galileo. Do you really mean to
> liken yourself to the "Flat Earthers"?
>
No, for even the Bible if they were to read it well into the BC years
had earth a circle, but people believe what they do for differing
reasons. I think the flat-earthers to be logical but lacking in
investigative fortitude.
>
>
> >> Furthermore, in order to put on the mantle of Galileo, you have to be
> >> right. As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, and the laughed at
> >> Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just being ridiculed
> >> by scientists doesn't mean you are right.
>
> > And Newton making more contributions to the religious field than the
> > scientific field doesn't make him wrong either.
>
> No one claims that Newton was wrong, just because he advocated Alchemy,
> and denied the divinity of Christ. Newton's religion is irrelevant to
> the veracity of his scientific conclusions. If Newton, however had
> claimed that gravity is a myth because it contradicts the Bible, few
> people would have accepted his claims.
>
He was just saying God was superior to Christ of which enlightened
Bible students see also. He had ultimate respect for the Christ. I
do believe he looked at God through his science discoveries. Imagine
no rain, or no gravity. What would the odds be of life doing it's
thing?
>
>
> >>> There's lots of
> >>> motivation IMO for finding how life works.
> >> Which is why scientists are looking into the concept.
>
> > Which is why the motivation for much of the whole field might not be
> > on a pure playing field.
>
> Pure or not, the science tends to be self policing on this. Scientists
> who are found falsifying data, or producing false claims lose their
> careers, and their reputations. They don't stay long in science.
>
Lots of policemen for just 'one' theory.
>
>
> >>> Prestige and money and
> >>> lots of pride. And to do this without even considerig God, well that
> >>> might even be satanic.
> >> Sorry, but all science works without considering God, or any other
> >> supernatural being. It's not "satanic" but just how science works.
> >> There is no reason why God can't use the processes that scientists are
> >> studying.
>
> > It should consider God.
>
> Why? Science is not equipped to consider God, or any other supernatural
> beings.
>
Molecules could be chaotic as well as in mathmatical order. I think
the odds favor God. And if God...then nature might be looked at
differently than without a God possibility.
> >God is just another scientific concept.
>
> How? Can you test God? Can you place God under a microscope?
>
God is just outside the eyeball, the whole Panorama. Everything there
for the convenience of Earth's inhabitants. Do we need to test a
radio wave to prove that the radio works and plays music?
> >Out
> > of world engineering capablities.
>
> any evidence of this?
>
Well for me there is. You might check this guy out in sci.physics
that proposes God through severe mathmatical formulae.
> > Satanism wants to rail against God
> > in any shape or form in much of religious dogma.
>
> Well, that's their right, but it's irrelevant to science. Science does
> not "rail against" God, it simply doesn't deal with the concept.
>
It might not be, since satanists are more likely to be in the science
field than other fields. Of course I think a few are in the religious
fields as well. Satanists are self-serving and well will put morals
to the side for expedience in quicker knowledge.
> > Many evolutionists
> > even claim to be satanists,
>
> Really? Care to cite a single evolutionary scientist who claims to be a
> satanist?
>
Budikka666. Usually can tell by their outlook, as not many will say
they are, for the public image thing.
> > because it takes god out of the theory and
> > elevates their's somehow.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't believe you. Produce some support for this
> claim, please.
>
Well it's just how I perceive Satan and followers to operate. I could
say in government, and in Hollywood as well as many fields. He's
quite a nuisance in my life.
>
>
> >>> Anyway, pretty soon you have all this new hip
> >>> hop scientific argot going on, and pretty soon you believe its true,
> >> Because of the evidence. It would be foolish to believe something is
> >> false when it fits the evidence.
>
> > And how does God or creationism, 'not fit'?
>
> Because there is no evidence for God, and Creationism is contradicted by
> the evidence we do have.
>
Does all evidence intersect with a blackboard?
>
>
> >>> especially when morality is very unscientific, just like God.
> >> Where do you get the idea that "morality" is unscientific? God as
> >> concept is not unscientific, appeals to the supernatural as an
> >> explanation for natural phenomena is unscientific.
>
> > There are sectors that believe there is no right or wrong.
>
> Well, again that's their right, but that's not science.
>
Their claim is that they are all scientific, and well the right and
wrongers are just 'below' on another thinking level.
> > Everything
> > is just cause and effect.
>
> Again, how is this relevant to what is science.
>
Science is just knowledge gathering. You have to organize it somehow,
and people will attempt to in oh so many ways.
> > Therefore lying, stealing, and neutralizing
> > people are just part of life, instead of making it a 'bad'.
>
> So? Why would this be relevant to the facts of science? You are
> talking philosophy here, not science. Incidentally, there are people
> who seem to find lying, stealing, and "neutralizing people" to be
> justified by their religious dogma.
>
I agree, but these folk whether science, religious or both will offer
'facts' and stay the course with their actions.
> > It may
> > be that 'survival of the fittest' is without morality and is the
> > scientists way of thinking for is holy grail.
>
> What someone may believe has nothing to do with the idea that morality
> is not a scientific concept. Morality is part of human interaction,
> probably due to humans being social animals, which are highly dependent
> on each other. The "fittest" in the above phrase does not always mean
> the biggest, strongest, or most selfish. It means those which possess
> traits that provide an advantage to reproductive success. For humans,
> cooperation, honesty, and being just are often more likely to lead to
> reproductive success than lying, stealing, or killing others.
>
Or cooperation with honestly, with those in power instead of those who
have nothing to offer. People usually will stay honest unless nothing
gets in their way like prestige and money.
>
>
> >>> Anyway
> >>> to get the jazz song on the pop radio, you have to sell ones soul. I
> >>> am sure I am perfectly clear.
> >> Clear as mud.
>
> > What do you think the Scientist would get if he caught the picture of
> > life going from non-existent to existent would be?
>
> A Nobel prize, at least. But what does that have to do with the above?
>
Well we are waiting. I figured this prize would have been given a
long time ago to get the world at large to believe in only evolution
as an answer.
>
>
> >>>>>>> It's one that has subjective attempted meanings by opining people.
> >>>>>> The same can be said for all words.
> >>>>> Of course, but some are more objective than others, but evolution is
> >>>>> just used as subjectively in society away from lifeforms as anything.
> >>>> Many technical terms sound like or are spelled like general usage
> >>>> terms. They may or may not be derived from them, but in the technical
> >>>> field they have a clear meaning.
> >>> I could never understand a ghetto converstation.
> >> Irrelevant. Whether or not you understand scientific jargon is not
> >> relevant to whether or not a concept is true.
>
> > It maybe though the jargon is for the secret society of interpretors
> > and meant not to be understood.
>
> No, the "jargon" is to allow those in the field to communicate. It can
> be understood, as long as you are willing to make an effort to understand.
>
>
>
> >>>>> The project is 'evolving'. All it means is it's going somewhere.
> >>>> No, it means that the distribution of alleles in the species are
> >>>> changing over time. There is no goal, and "going somewhere" is only
> >>>> meaningful - if at all - in retrospect.
> >>> Oh he's going to throw in some alleles without explaining it.
> >> Would it kill you to educate yourself for once?
>
> > So testy here.
>
> No, just a little frustration at your continued unwillingness to learn.
>
Like I say, I will watch the Discovery Channel which is predominated
by evolutionists and get entertainment and some insight, and still
stay exactly the way I am, and feeling that I am truly fair in my
judgment.
> > It's like people who don't take an interest in the
> > hundreds of theories of life are somehow uneducated.
>
> Well, in this case, yes. There is only one theory of how life
> diversified.
>
Hmmm. It just seems way out there. I like the complete bodies, and
the diversification of seeds myself.
> > I am sorry but
> > only certain sector of society can do the New York Times Saturday
> > Crossword. I am one of those who occassionally accomplish that feat.
> > That must mean since you probably don't, aren't as 'educated' as I am?
>
> What it means is don't whine about "jargon" if you aren't willing to
> learn what words mean. The word "allele" is a simple term to describe
> a particular concept. If you enter the discussion, you need to learn
> something about what you are disputing.
>
Well you didn't 'have' to bring it up did you?
>
>
> >>> It must
> >>> be like plankton or atomic molecules or somephin.
> >> An allele is a particular form of a gene. Like hair color, (could be
> >> red, or brown, or blond), or eye color (green, blue, brown, hazel).
> >> Evolution is change in the frequency of a particular type of gene over
> >> generations in a population.
>
> > Oh, that's way far up the Change ladder.
>
> What "ladder"? A ladder is a very poor analogy for evolution. A
> spreading bush is more correct.
>
Should I put in Burning Bush, here?...:-O
>
>
> >>>>> That's all the scientific definition of evolution can mean.
> >>>> Bwahahaha! Another creationist who hasn't a clue how language works.
> >>>> The meaning of a word is how it is used, son.
> >>> It really has none in the world which is neutral toward the attempted
> >>> Change Of Life Theory. It's just a word that depicts change. What
> >>> spin is put on it is 'evolution'. Don't try and tell me it wasn't a
> >>> word before that dreadful science/religion was formatted?
> >> The word "evolution" before Darwin used it, meant "unfolding", or how
> >> events happen over time. Darwin used it to mean the change of
> >> morphology in a population over time. (Darwin didn't know about genes,
> >> or gene expressions)
>
> > I see, just another ghetto word...-:)
>
> Again, if you aren't willing to learn, what's the point?
>
That's for yourself. This is just a blackboard, of which I hope
people will realize how "wonderfully made" they are ....(Psalms)
>
>
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> theories within it would give its general meaning any credence or not.
> >>>> Mmmm.
> >>>> I would say that how it is used by a group of people is its meaning,
> >>>> for them.
> >>>> The *theory is given credence (not the meaning of any words) by how
> >>>> well it fits the evidence, and whether or not it is testable.
> >>> Our first agreement. Shall we conduct an anniversary?
> >> Which tends to indicate you don't understand how words are used in the
> >> English language.
>
> > Well, I will let you dawdle in your on condesceningism here. You are
> > on your own.
>
> Again, don't whine about not knowing the language if you won't take the
> time and effort to learn.
>
> DJT
CJ
wf3h
what dissenting point of view? i'm a chemist. is there a 'dissenting
point of view' to the existence of atoms? if a crackpot says atoms
don't exist, do we give him equal time?
>
> CJ
wf3h
> On 15 Dec, 21:22, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>
> > > There's already plenty of proof. Much more than "a handful of bones."
> > There are thousands of fossils scientists have studied that provide
> > more than enough proof of evolution.
>
> Really your being deceitful, because there isn't.
ah. he said it so it's so. the existence of fossils is dismissed
because of his religious beliefs.
>They wouldn't even
> fill up your garage.
this is like being slightly pregnant. ONE fossil is proof of
evolution. since we have NO evidence that 'god did it' created
anything, it seems evolution has a garage full of evidence, whereas
'god' has an empty garage
>
> > That certainly describes religion. But not evolutionary science.
>
> Evolution will change the earth by tremendous proportions to show what
> must have been when. How can one be so gullible to trust the millions
> of scenarios?
it's the height of irony watching a creationist ask someone about
being gullible...
>
wf3h
>
> Because things don't work when the product is not complete. How are
> things going to get going if they don't have sex organs at the onset?
looks like a 'god of the gaps' argument. he doesnt KNOW how it
happened so it didn't.
creationists have used this to argue against the existence of atoms,
of germs, of gravity...all before these things were discovered.
the creationists' god keeps getting smaller every day.
curtjester1
coming into existence by itself by chaotic motions?
Why is there so much mathmatics and precisions in the movements about
the molecules and elements? Should we just say to the kids, well it
just happened that way? What if a kid says something like the order
seems already there, how does evolution enter into that? And the
teacher has to say, shut up kid, it's obvious were teaching an
evolution class here?!
CJ
>
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> On Dec 17, 2:13 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Dec, 21:22, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > > > There's already plenty of proof. Much more than "a handful of bones."
> > > There are thousands of fossils scientists have studied that provide
> > > more than enough proof of evolution.
>
> > Really your being deceitful, because there isn't.
>
> ah. he said it so it's so. the existence of fossils is dismissed
> because of his religious beliefs.
>
must be a thousand to a million transformations that went into a so
called ape going to a man. Don't you need more evidence, or are you
going to take a few fossils as proof? Isn't if funny that most of the
fossil finds are later found to be one or the other?
> >They wouldn't even
> > fill up your garage.
>
> this is like being slightly pregnant. ONE fossil is proof of
> evolution. since we have NO evidence that 'god did it' created
> anything, it seems evolution has a garage full of evidence, whereas
> 'god' has an empty garage
>
Show us how one fossil is proof of anything? And then show us how
they form a transition from one species to another?
>
>
> > > That certainly describes religion. But not evolutionary science.
>
> > Evolution will change the earth by tremendous proportions to show what
> > must have been when. How can one be so gullible to trust the millions
> > of scenarios?
>
> it's the height of irony watching a creationist ask someone about
> being gullible...
>
You've swallowed the hand full of bones theory. Is time your elixir
for everything?
CJ
curtjester1
> On Dec 17, 1:44 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Because things don't work when the product is not complete. How are
> > things going to get going if they don't have sex organs at the onset?
>
> looks like a 'god of the gaps' argument. he doesnt KNOW how it
> happened so it didn't.
>
of sex involved? Are you just going to go along with any crazy
scenario?
> creationists have used this to argue against the existence of atoms,
> of germs, of gravity...all before these things were discovered.
>
Aren't these things that if you look at the possiblities of them would
seem in toto that it would be impossible for life to just happen?
What if the gravity were 100 instead of the 14.something? Everything
has to be 'just so'. So far away from the sun, so much water, having
seeds, knowledge, eyesight, logic for decisions. You think this came
from a floating rock?
CJ