The Experiment
Apobetics
The evolutionists claim that life came about through inorganic
chemicals along with water, carbon, methane and a few others. The
majority claim that this all took place in some "soup" over millions
and millions of years. From this soup the first (because there had to
be a first) single living cell arose. So all the ingredients for
this cell were present when this first cell took thought and formed
itself and became a living, reproducing entity. From there on it was
just a matter of time and chance and viola, here we are!
Let us see if his is possible by conducting a simple experiment.
First we mix all the chemicals available in a non living world, add
electric spark and what do we get-burned chemicals but no life (Miller
& Uray).
Let us move on to the next experiment, however, this time we will rig
the mix with the following: we will take a jar of water, saline if
you like, at a constant temperature and to this we will add several
living cells. Now we will rupture the cells walls so that all their
living ingredients empty out into the water. We now have all the
components of life floating around in this soup. How long will we
have to wait until they all come together to form a living cell?
Answer-NEVER!
Free Lunch
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1172423002.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>:
Thank you for demonstrating your total dishonesty. It appears that you
think that you are a Christian. Could you provide scriptural support for
your decision to lie about science?
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Clyde Squid
> The Experiment
>
> The evolutionists claim that life came about through inorganic
> chemicals along with water, carbon, methane and a few others. The
> majority claim that this all took place in some "soup" over millions
> and millions of years. From this soup the first (because there had to
> be a first) single living cell arose. So all the ingredients for
> this cell were present when this first cell took thought and formed
> itself and became a living, reproducing entity. From there on it was
> just a matter of time and chance and viola, here we are!
Lies. What's your excuse: are you too afraid to post the truth or
are you just too intellectually stunted or lazy to learn them?
> Let us see if his is possible by conducting a simple experiment.
> First we mix all the chemicals available in a non living world, add
> electric spark and what do we get-burned chemicals but no life (Miller
> & Uray).
Burned chemicals? Add basic chemistry to the long list of subjects
you know nothing about. Why don't you ask your gods to help you
understand how absolutely stupid "burned chemicals" is, since reading
and learning do not appear to be something you alone are currently
capable of.
> Let us move on to the next experiment, however, this time we will rig
> the mix with the following: we will take a jar of water, saline if
> you like, at a constant temperature and to this we will add several
> living cells. Now we will rupture the cells walls so that all their
> living ingredients empty out into the water. We now have all the
> components of life floating around in this soup. How long will we
> have to wait until they all come together to form a living cell?
Pretty poor experiment, since it wouldn't test any supported
proposition or hypothesis. Scientists do not think that the first
life came about in this fashion. You would know that if you bothered
to learn science instead of lying about it.
Science continues to gain a better understanding of how life first
appeared on this planet, while religious fanatics like you continue
irrationally maintain that your unsupported stories are somehow better
than a supported, but incomplete, scientific explanation. But you
have clearly demonstrated you are a cowardly, lying imbecile who is
completely ignorant about science, history, and philosophy; and who
cannot comprehend basic logic or discern good reasoning from bad.
> Answer-NEVER!
Standard creationist dishonest straw man rant. Again, any junior high
school debate team could tear this apart before breakfast. Are you
sure you are pleasing your gods with such embarrassing ignorance and
lies?
Clyde
madam speaker
times a second for two billion years. Fair is fair sweetheart, get back to
me when you have collected all the data.
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172423002.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Sugien
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:i3j3u25e6pnghkiob...@4ax.com...
so what you are saying is that you can't find fault with their logic so you
just try and change the subject by spouting off? Typical!
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
\}
Sugien
"Clyde Squid" <clyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172442827.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
So you are saying you can't fault the logic so you just go on a rant,
typical
Clyde Squid
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I did fault the logic. He lied, he knows nothing of the chemical
experiment he described (come on, "burned chemicals"), and the
experiment he proposed in not necessary or relevant. It's a straw
man, pure and simple. How is pointing that out a rant, compared to
endlessly dropping these completely absurd posts and not responding to
those who counter it, like Apo has been for some time now?
So are you saying you can't fault my logical refutation of his straw
man, so you just assert that I posted nothing of significance?
Typical...
Clyde
Sugien
on earth *after* life was created then it is on science to *prove how* life
first began. Most that are proponents of evolution side step the issue by
saying that evolution only says what happen *after* life came into
existence. That may be all well and good; it does not however show *how*
life came to be in the first place. If as science says life evolved from
lower forms and that they can trace it's origins back why not trace it back
to *before* there was life and show the point at which lifeless molecules
and proteins and neculitites became alive and what mechanism was responsible
for life beginning from elements which are *not* alive. Why can they not
take the elements which they say were present and *re-create* the life that
the say continues to evolve?
Sugien
"madam speaker" <master@arms> wrote in message
news:YbadnaeSA-O9oH_Y...@wavecable.com...
First learn to NOT top post then get back to us ok?
Clyde Squid
First, science doesn't "prove" anything, it uses evidences to produce
the best conclusions possible. Second, how life first began is
completely independent as to whether it evolved after it appeared.
The first life could have been put here magically by a super-being;
that doesn't change that species clearly share common ancestry.
Creationists commonly conflate these two very different things because
speciation and biogenesis occur simultaneously in their stories.
Since they are not the same event in the scientific explanation, your
assertion that biogenesis be proven for evolution to be valid is not
required by logic or by the scientific method.
>Most that are proponents of evolution side step the issue by
> saying that evolution only says what happen *after* life came into
> existence.
That's not side-stepping: evolution occurs in randomly mutating
replicators. If there were none, then it had not yet occurred.
>That may be all well and good; it does not however show *how*
> life came to be in the first place.
Correct. Evolution does not explain how life came to be in the first
place. It explains how species originate.
>If as science says life evolved from
> lower forms
It doesn't say this. It says that species evolved from earlier
species. "Lower" and "forms" are relative terms; they mean nothing.
>and that they can trace it's origins back why not trace it back
> to *before* there was life and show the point at which lifeless molecules
> and proteins and neculitites became alive and what mechanism was >responsible
> for life beginning from elements which are *not* alive.
Certainly scientists are researching how life likely began on an early
earth. Very early fossils of single-cell life have been found and are
being studied. But given the age of the earth, how long ago the event
happened, and geologic change, direct evidence is simply hard to come
by.
There is every reason to predict that in the next few decades science
will have a better picture of how life originated. It is also true
that science does not currently have a complete model for how this
happened now. However, I will take an incomplete explanation
supported by some facts over an ancient myth supported by none. I
would actually take no answer before I just accepted a mythological
tale just because having an answer is appealing.
>Why can they not
> take the elements which they say were present and *re-create* the life that
> the say continues to evolve?
Because this event did not take place in a human lifetime, but over
millions of years. Science does not have time machines. But
scientists can continue to study the biochemistry of the ancient
earth, do experiments with chemicals likely to have been around at the
time, and come up with a plausible scenario for how, over very long
periods of time, molecules started self-replicating. It's an exciting
field; I wish I were smart enough to participate in it.
Now, why don't *you* demand this level of evidence for your
mythologies. I propose that you demand a level of evidence for
science that you don't for your religious beliefs. True or no?
Clyde
Sugien
Because believers in God have faith and where there is evidence there is no
need for faith. How do you explain irreducible complexity? Have you seen
the video "where does the evidence lead"? It gives some quite strong
evidence how that as Darwin said when a irreducibly complex system can be
shown it invalidates his theory. The movie shows how the flagellum motor of
bacterium can not be built up in stages or from other organisms and as such
is evidence for a irreducibly complex system. As for science saying they
can reproduce life; because of it taking far to long to duplicate. Well why
did the creation of life stop? Surely such an amazing system that creates
life from virtually nothing would not just disappear after having created
the most important thing ever, namely life its self.
Clyde Squid
So in your mind, your believing you don't need evidences trumps any
evidences. Highly irrational.
>How do you explain irreducible complexity? Have you seen
> the video "where does the evidence lead"? It gives some quite strong
> evidence how that as Darwin said when a irreducibly complex system can be
> shown it invalidates his theory. The movie shows how the flagellum motor of
> bacterium can not be built up in stages or from other organisms and as such
> is evidence for a irreducibly complex system. As for science saying they
> can reproduce life; because of it taking far to long to duplicate. Well why
> did the creation of life stop? Surely such an amazing system that creates
> life from virtually nothing would not just disappear after having created
> the most important thing ever, namely life its self.
Standard creationist trick: ignore my last post and move on to
another topic without admitting defeat. And if I answer this one,
will you then ask me how new information can arise? Why should I
explain how irreducible complexity is explained and debunked by
science when evidences don't matter to you? There are resources out
there if you really want to know this material. But since you have
already stated that evidence is meaningless to you, and you would
rather believe in mythological tales for which there is no evidence, I
doubt you will. So why even ask me this question? Did you think you
would trick me?
For what it's worth (nothing to people like you who deny evidence, I
know), I have not seen that video, but I have read Behe, Demski, and
Wells. IC is logically flawed: it's a false dilemma based on
personal incredulity (if Behe can't think of how it evolved, magic did
it). They, like you, ask rational people to irrationally ignore all
the evidences that species evolved, then irrationally assert there are
only 2 choices (evolution and magic), and maintain one *must* choose
the latter because minutia of the former needs more research. Totally
illogical, but cleverly designed to fool the untrained mind.
Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC. A
system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required, not
magic.
But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
rational existence. At least you're honest.
> --
> From the Desk of Paul CKC
> /}
> @###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
> \}
Clyde
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<EMudnYjwBbyk13_Y...@adelphia.com>:
Of course I did not say that. Of course you know I did not say that.
Feel free to tell all the lies you like, that will not make them true.
What evidence is there that you are a believer?
Sugien
A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie biased on
erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
> system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
> selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever happen
> another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required, not
> magic.
Not magic God
>
> But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
> rational existence. At least you're honest.
Yes I am but you can not say the same
Clyde Squid
> > Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC. A
>
> A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie biased on
> erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
What about this scenario couldn't happen, thereby making me a liar?
Groups of genes get duplicated, it's been observed. Those genes are
affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
observed. Altered genes conveying new traits to an organism based on
this process has been observed (nylonase comes to mind). Thus, there
is no reason that these events couldn't lead to an IC system over
enough generations under the right selective pressure. So where was I
biased? Where was my erroneous conjecture? And I do have the desire
to be *accurate*, do you?
>
> > system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
> > selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
>
> The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever happen
Then provide it. You don't win with appeals to a video. What
evidence showed my scenario was wrong, since you know enough about
these alleged evidences to know it is wrong? And I thought evidence
didn't matter, where there was evidence there was no faith? Have you
evidence but no faith, or no evidence and just faith?
> > another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required, not
> > magic.
>
> Not magic God
>
Same thing. I call the uncharacterized super-powers of imaginary
supernatural beings magic. Sorry you don't like the term.
>
> > But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
> > rational existence. At least you're honest.
>
> Yes I am but you can not say the same
You cannot show where I have been dishonest, so this is just another
baseless assertion on your part. Pathetic.
Also, you ignored the rest of my post. Why is IC not a false dilemma
that demands one ignore all available evidences and also demands only
one unsupported assertion out of many?
> >> From the Desk of Paul CKC
<snip>
Clyde
Clyde Squid
> affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
> observed.
Oops, I meant by random mutation *and* natural selection. Slip of the
keyboard.
<snip>
Sugien
your statement left that impression
> Feel free to tell all the lies you like, that will not make them true.
making use of my lines are you
>
> What evidence is there that you are a believer?
No evidence needed and none can actually be shown via Usenet; but here in
real life however I likewise need not *try* and show any evidence for my
being a believer; because it is quite self evident by my actions; because I
don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk and help the helpless along with
volunteering and by giving my time to others as well as my resources when
needed. I have always wondered about anti-theists and if they give of their
selves to help others? I remember that when I was agnostic *I* still did
most of the same things I do now; but I did so because of how it made me
look in the eyes of others instead of how it makes me feel inside now.
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<6badnVU4wLcFKX7Y...@adelphia.com>:
I'm asking why you lie.
Sugien
> <snip>
>
>> > Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC. A
>>
>> A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie biased on
>> erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
>
> What about this scenario couldn't happen, thereby making me a liar?
> Groups of genes get duplicated, it's been observed. Those genes are
But where did the *life* come from that the genes are replicating?
> affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
But first life has to occure
> observed. Altered genes conveying new traits to an organism based on
> this process has been observed (nylonase comes to mind). Thus, there
> is no reason that these events couldn't lead to an IC system over
> enough generations under the right selective pressure. So where was I
> biased? Where was my erroneous conjecture? And I do have the desire
> to be *accurate*, do you?
Your erroneous conjecture is in assuming that it could have happned if life
was not already present! Show how without life having first been there that
this could have happned.
>>
>> > system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
>> > selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
>>
>> The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever
>> happen
>
> Then provide it. You don't win with appeals to a video. What
> evidence showed my scenario was wrong, since you know enough about
> these alleged evidences to know it is wrong? And I thought evidence
> didn't matter, where there was evidence there was no faith? Have you
> evidence but no faith, or no evidence and just faith?
I need no evidence; because I have faith; but there are those that insist on
having evidence because they have no faith and that is the only reason for
giving any. As for the video, I posted a link to it some time ago; but now
it seems that that link is no longer valid and that the link was hosting
copyrighted material *without* permission. I certainly am not going to
upload copyrighted material that most likely will never be viewed; because
when the link was valid all any non-believer would say is that they didn't
need to watch it because they knew any evidence it gave had to be wrong
because it's could not show that which could not be proven. To which I said
then as now that they just won't accept any evidence contrary to their
belief system.
>
>> > another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required, not
>> > magic.
>>
>> Not magic God
>>
> Same thing. I call the uncharacterized super-powers of imaginary
> supernatural beings magic. Sorry you don't like the term.
The term was intended to be condescending and you are quite aware of your
using it as such.
>>
>> > But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
>> > rational existence. At least you're honest.
>>
>> Yes I am but you can not say the same
>
> You cannot show where I have been dishonest, so this is just another
> baseless assertion on your part. Pathetic.
Not at all and the pathetic one is you; because you either refuse to see or
worse yet can not see that I was talking about your dishonesty about you
saying that I admitted that I value irrational faith over a rational
existence. So you have shown yourself doubly inaccurate haven't you.
>
> Also, you ignored the rest of my post. Why is IC not a false dilemma
> that demands one ignore all available evidences and also demands only
> one unsupported assertion out of many?
I ignored the rest of your post; because it spouts about evolution without
given credit to evolutions creator which wasn't a scientist but rather God;
because God created everything and *AFTER* God created everything then
diversity started. God created the world as being old when it was formed.
Everything God created was an adult including the planet including the
planet containing fossils. God as some try and say did NOT do this in any
type of attempt to fool anyone; but rather I suspect; because of it being
natural for an adult planet that contains life to have such things.
>
>> >> From the Desk of Paul CKC
>
> <snip>
>
> Clyde
>
Paul
Sugien
Ah, but from where did the life come from to start with?
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<GeudnYdy-4oEKn7Y...@adelphia.com>:
Natural chemical processes, of course.
Clyde Squid
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
> news:1172541414....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
> > <snip>
>>
> >> > Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC.
>> >> A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie biased on
> >> erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
>
> > What about this scenario couldn't happen, thereby making me a liar?
> > Groups of genes get duplicated, it's been observed. Those genes are
>
> But where did the *life* come from that the genes are replicating?
I addressed this earlier, and you failed to respond to the points
therein. I will not type it again. But once again, you do the
standard creationist dance: switch subjects out of the blue in order
to run away from the evidence provided.
> > affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
>
> But first life has to occure
Again, you are not responding to my points, you are trying to change
subjects. ID proponents do not state whether any particular IC
system (like their favorite, the flagellum) was added or inherent in
life anyway, so your point is?
> > observed. Altered genes conveying new traits to an organism based on
> > this process has been observed (nylonase comes to mind). Thus, there
> > is no reason that these events couldn't lead to an IC system over
> > enough generations under the right selective pressure. So where was I
> > biased? Where was my erroneous conjecture? And I do have the desire
> > to be *accurate*, do you?
>
> Your erroneous conjecture is in assuming that it could have happned if life
> was not already present! Show how without life having first been there that
> this could have happned.
>
ID doesn't state whether IC systems were added or inherent. And I
already explained to you why evolution and biogenesis were two
different things. You failed to respond to the argument then, but now
that I have answered how an IC system could evolve, you bring back the
refuted argument that I have to show how molecules started self-
replicating to form the basic structures of life before I can maintain
that IC systems can evolve. And as I have already pointed out,
evolution can occur regardless of whether the first life on earth came
about by natural or supernatural processes.
>
> >> > system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
> >> > selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
>
> >> The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever
> >> happen
>
> > Then provide it. You don't win with appeals to a video. What
> > evidence showed my scenario was wrong, since you know enough about
> > these alleged evidences to know it is wrong? And I thought evidence
> > didn't matter, where there was evidence there was no faith? Have you
> > evidence but no faith, or no evidence and just faith?
>
> I need no evidence; because I have faith;
Then it is dishonest of you to demand evidence from others when you
require none and would accept none. Oh, and keep what you just said in
mind for later: I quote it word for word.
>but there are those that insist on
> having evidence because they have no faith and that is the only reason for
> giving any.
I demand evidences before I believe anything. Why is this
irrational?
>As for the video, I posted a link to it some time ago; but now
> it seems that that link is no longer valid and that the link was hosting
> copyrighted material *without* permission.
You have provided no evidence; you have provided an excuse as to why
you can't link a video you referenced. May I point out to you that I
stated earlier that I have read Behe, Demski, and Wells; I know their
arguments. Clearly you don't, even after having watched the video,
because you can't respond to my points without just putting a link to
a video and saying "there!" What's stopping you from using the
knowledge you gained, and that you think I don't know, to respond to
my points?
>I certainly am not going to
> upload copyrighted material that most likely will never be viewed; because
> when the link was valid all any non-believer would say is that they didn't
> need to watch it because they knew any evidence it gave had to be wrong
> because it's could not show that which could not be proven.
Now you presume to speak to what I would and would not do. While I
have addressed each of your points one by one, and you have not, *I*
am the one who wouldn't go to a posted link in a debate. Too funny.
Why do you presume this instead of just using the knowledge you gained
from this video to address my points? If you can't, then how do you
know they are wrong?
>To which I said
> then as now that they just won't accept any evidence contrary to their
> belief system.
>
That's rich coming from someone who has stated that evidence is
irrelevant. I would gladly accept any evidence you could provide.
You have provided none.
> >> > another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required, not
> >> > magic.
>
> >> Not magic God
>
> > Same thing. I call the uncharacterized super-powers of imaginary
> > supernatural beings magic. Sorry you don't like the term.
>
> The term was intended to be condescending and you are quite aware of your
> using it as such.
>
So? Do you use "atheist" and "unbeliever" condescendingly? I am an
atheist, and supernatural powers are magic. If you don't like the
term, explain to me how poofing animals into existence by a god is no
different than poofing an animal into existance by, say, Harry
Potter? You may not worship Harry Potter, but the act is the same,
no?
>
> >> > But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
> >> > rational existence. At least you're honest.
>
> >> Yes I am but you can not say the same
>
> > You cannot show where I have been dishonest, so this is just another
> > baseless assertion on your part. Pathetic.
>
> Not at all and the pathetic one is you; because you either refuse to see or
> worse yet can not see that I was talking about your dishonesty about you
> saying that I admitted that I value irrational faith over a rational
> existence. So you have shown yourself doubly inaccurate haven't you.
>
I can't see what you do not provide. When I asked you why you do not
demand the same standards of evidence for your religion as you do for
science, you stated, and I quote: "Because believers in God have
faith and where there is evidence there is no need for faith." How was
I supposed to take this? I took this at your word. In this very last
post (I asked you to keep this one in mind), you state: "I need no
evidence; because I have faith." It's right there, go up and look. So
why am I wrong to point out that you value irrational faith (ie,
belief without evidence) over a rational existence again?
> > Also, you ignored the rest of my post. Why is IC not a false dilemma
> > that demands one ignore all available evidences and also demands only
> > one unsupported assertion out of many?
>
> I ignored the rest of your post; because it spouts about evolution without
> given credit to evolutions creator which wasn't a scientist but rather God;
> because God created everything and *AFTER* God created everything then
> diversity started. God created the world as being old when it was formed.
> Everything God created was an adult including the planet including the
> planet containing fossils. God as some try and say did NOT do this in any
> type of attempt to fool anyone; but rather I suspect; because of it being
> natural for an adult planet that contains life to have such things.
>
So in other words, you couldn't. I have tackled every post you have
made thus far point by point, but you don't do so because I don't
believe in your god. I have addressed every point you have made, but
you have evaded most of mine, including this last one. Your excuse is
your assertion that none of my points could be valid because it
doesn't agree with your theology. Pathetic.
> Paul
Clyde
Clyde Squid
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Addressed in my post below.
Clyde
Sugien
Not; but if you insist then it should be quite an easy matter to replicate
it yes?
Sugien
Your post did no such thing!
Apobetics
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172554759....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:46 pm, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1172542547.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > >Those genes are
> >> >> affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
> >> >> observed.
>
> >> > Oops, I meant by random mutation *and* natural selection. Slip of the
> >> > keyboard.
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> Ah, but from where did the life come from to start with?
>
> > Addressed in my post below.
>
> > Clyde
>
> Your post did no such thing!
_________________________________________________________
Sugien, it profits nothing to try and argue with fools.
Sugien
> On Feb 26, 10:45 pm, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>> news:1172541414....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>> > <snip>
>>>
>> >> > Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC.
> ?>>
>>> >> A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie
>>> >> biased on
>> >> erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
>>
>> > What about this scenario couldn't happen, thereby making me a liar?
>> > Groups of genes get duplicated, it's been observed. Those genes are
>>
>> But where did the *life* come from that the genes are replicating?
>
> I addressed this earlier, and you failed to respond to the points
> therein. I will not type it again. But once again, you do the
> standard creationist dance: switch subjects out of the blue in order
> to run away from the evidence provided.
no; because you try the same old evolutionist dance in trying to skirt the
subject of where life came from; by saying that you don't have to say
anything about where life came from because of evolution only addressing
what happens *after* life was present; that however is the entire point!
>
>> > affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
>>
>> But first life has to occure
>
> Again, you are not responding to my points, you are trying to change
> subjects. ID proponents do not state whether any particular IC
> system (like their favorite, the flagellum) was added or inherent in
> life anyway, so your point is?
The flagellum, could not be created by evolution; because the parts are IC
because it was not and IS not inherent in life that is the point and you are
quite aware of it or else you would not be trying to skirt the issue or
misdirect by trying to say it was just there all along, which if you agree
it was created by God then the debate is over!
>
>> > observed. Altered genes conveying new traits to an organism based on
>> > this process has been observed (nylonase comes to mind). Thus, there
>> > is no reason that these events couldn't lead to an IC system over
>> > enough generations under the right selective pressure. So where was I
>> > biased? Where was my erroneous conjecture? And I do have the desire
>> > to be *accurate*, do you?
>>
>> Your erroneous conjecture is in assuming that it could have happned if
>> life
>> was not already present! Show how without life having first been there
>> that
>> this could have happned.
>>
> ID doesn't state whether IC systems were added or inherent. And I
> already explained to you why evolution and biogenesis were two
> different things. You failed to respond to the argument then, but now
> that I have answered how an IC system could evolve, you bring back the
You have yet to explain how IC system could evolve you only stated that it
was *just* there!
> refuted argument that I have to show how molecules started self-
> replicating to form the basic structures of life before I can maintain
You have NOT show any such thing
> that IC systems can evolve. And as I have already pointed out,
IC system by definition can NOT evolve; because they can never be built up
from either existing parts or be in the system without a reason for the
system to make them.
> evolution can occur regardless of whether the first life on earth came
> about by natural or supernatural processes.
I agree that AFTER God created everything that his creation power being so
strong continues on in his creations; because of his wishing for his
creations to be able to adapt to their surrounds and there by increase their
ability to thrive. This is the dance that evolutions use, they try and say
"well we don't know where the life came from; but *after* it was here it
started changing" to which I can only say "Dah!" Of course after God created
life he instilled a mechanism to enable that life to thrive!
>>
>> >> > system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
>> >> > selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
>>
>> >> The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever
>> >> happen
>>
>> > Then provide it. You don't win with appeals to a video. What
>> > evidence showed my scenario was wrong, since you know enough about
>> > these alleged evidences to know it is wrong? And I thought evidence
>> > didn't matter, where there was evidence there was no faith? Have you
>> > evidence but no faith, or no evidence and just faith?
>>
>> I need no evidence; because I have faith;
>
> Then it is dishonest of you to demand evidence from others when you
> require none and would accept none. Oh, and keep what you just said in
> mind for later: I quote it word for word.
Your side is the one requiring evidance for Gods existance
>
>>but there are those that insist on
>> having evidence because they have no faith and that is the only reason
>> for
>> giving any.
>
> I demand evidences before I believe anything. Why is this
> irrational?
I said nothing about your needing evidence being irrational, but like most
evolutionists you like to try and twist words
>
>>As for the video, I posted a link to it some time ago; but now
>> it seems that that link is no longer valid and that the link was hosting
>> copyrighted material *without* permission.
>
> You have provided no evidence; you have provided an excuse as to why
> you can't link a video you referenced. May I point out to you that I
> stated earlier that I have read Behe, Demski, and Wells; I know their
> arguments. Clearly you don't, even after having watched the video,
> because you can't respond to my points without just putting a link to
> a video and saying "there!" What's stopping you from using the
> knowledge you gained, and that you think I don't know, to respond to
> my points?
See above
>
>>I certainly am not going to
>> upload copyrighted material that most likely will never be viewed;
>> because
>> when the link was valid all any non-believer would say is that they
>> didn't
>> need to watch it because they knew any evidence it gave had to be wrong
>> because it's could not show that which could not be proven.
>
> Now you presume to speak to what I would and would not do. While I
> have addressed each of your points one by one, and you have not, *I*
see above
> am the one who wouldn't go to a posted link in a debate. Too funny.
> Why do you presume this instead of just using the knowledge you gained
> from this video to address my points? If you can't, then how do you
> know they are wrong?
>
>>To which I said
>> then as now that they just won't accept any evidence contrary to their
>> belief system.
>>
> That's rich coming from someone who has stated that evidence is
> irrelevant. I would gladly accept any evidence you could provide.
> You have provided none.
You of course will not accept anecdotal evidence
>
>> >> > another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required,
>> >> > not
>> >> > magic.
>>
>> >> Not magic God
>>
>> > Same thing. I call the uncharacterized super-powers of imaginary
>> > supernatural beings magic. Sorry you don't like the term.
>>
>> The term was intended to be condescending and you are quite aware of your
>> using it as such.
>>
> So? Do you use "atheist" and "unbeliever" condescendingly? I am an
> atheist, and supernatural powers are magic. If you don't like the
> term, explain to me how poofing animals into existence by a god is no
> different than poofing an animal into existance by, say, Harry
> Potter? You may not worship Harry Potter, but the act is the same,
> no?
The difference is one is a work of fiction and the other an act of God. You
kind just *need* to think that humans in general and their selves in
particular are the end all and be all and that there is no power higher then
the human mind. God exists and is as provable as what your thoughts and
mind are. I would consider it much more a magic trick for everything to just
pop into existence *without* any help from God. Life and the universe did
not just pop into existence of its own accord.
>>
>> >> > But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
>> >> > rational existence. At least you're honest.
>>
>> >> Yes I am but you can not say the same
>>
>> > You cannot show where I have been dishonest, so this is just another
>> > baseless assertion on your part. Pathetic.
>>
>> Not at all and the pathetic one is you; because you either refuse to see
>> or
>> worse yet can not see that I was talking about your dishonesty about you
>> saying that I admitted that I value irrational faith over a rational
>> existence. So you have shown yourself doubly inaccurate haven't you.
>>
> I can't see what you do not provide. When I asked you why you do not
> demand the same standards of evidence for your religion as you do for
> science, you stated, and I quote: "Because believers in God have
> faith and where there is evidence there is no need for faith." How was
> I supposed to take this? I took this at your word. In this very last
> post (I asked you to keep this one in mind), you state: "I need no
> evidence; because I have faith." It's right there, go up and look. So
> why am I wrong to point out that you value irrational faith (ie,
> belief without evidence) over a rational existence again?
It is irrational to think that everything popped into existence from nothing
with no help
>
>> > Also, you ignored the rest of my post. Why is IC not a false dilemma
>> > that demands one ignore all available evidences and also demands only
>> > one unsupported assertion out of many?
>>
>> I ignored the rest of your post; because it spouts about evolution
>> without
>> given credit to evolutions creator which wasn't a scientist but rather
>> God;
>> because God created everything and *AFTER* God created everything then
>> diversity started. God created the world as being old when it was
>> formed.
>> Everything God created was an adult including the planet including the
>> planet containing fossils. God as some try and say did NOT do this in
>> any
>> type of attempt to fool anyone; but rather I suspect; because of it being
>> natural for an adult planet that contains life to have such things.
>>
> So in other words, you couldn't. I have tackled every post you have
> made thus far point by point, but you don't do so because I don't
wrong, see above an IC system can not evolve; because the parts could not be
created in a system that didn't need it nor co-opted from another system
that likewise didn't need it. Even given an eternity such a system would
not work, it is like the old example of the complex clock mechanism. Put
all the pieces in a box and no matter how long you shake it , it will NEVER
self assemble!
> believe in your god. I have addressed every point you have made, but
> you have evaded most of mine, including this last one. Your excuse is
> your assertion that none of my points could be valid because it
> doesn't agree with your theology. Pathetic.
>> Paul
>
> Clyde
>
>
Evolution and people thinking the human kind is the epitome of evolution is
what is pathetic. Thinking the this universe in all its glory just created
its self is just not feasible.
Sugien
as I have stated, you need to believe such is duly noted; but it does not
resemble anything within the factual universe.
John Baker
wrote:
>The Experiment
Here's an experiment for ya, IDon'tKnowShit. Suppose we nail your
worthless, lying ass to a cross and see if you come back in three
days.
Ralph
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:fNKdnegucbDKEnnY...@adelphia.com...
Isn't plagiarism the same as lying?
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<ibWdnRNgBeM2F3nY...@adelphia.com>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:j0f7u25j2hdjh4bf3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:46:18 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
>> "Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
>> <GeudnYdy-4oEKn7Y...@adelphia.com>:
>>>
>>>"Clyde Squid" <clyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1172542547.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >Those genes are
>>>>> affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
>>>>> observed.
>>>>
>>>> Oops, I meant by random mutation *and* natural selection. Slip of the
>>>> keyboard.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, but from where did the life come from to start with?
>>
>> Natural chemical processes, of course.
>
>Not;
Of course it is, you know that. Natural chemical processes keep you
alive today, what difference do you expect?
>but if you insist then it should be quite an easy matter to replicate
>it yes?
Why would it be? Natural doesn't mean simple.
Free Lunch
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1172606060.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Both of you are fools, yet sensible people do try to enlighten you. Both
of you, unfortunately are wedded to lies.
jrh
_YnZ2dnUV...@adelphia.com:
>> On Feb 25, 11:03 am, "Apobetics" <apobe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Experiment
<clip>
Do you ever analyze your posts?
AH:
>> Lies.
LQ: (question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition)
>> What's your excuse:
AH:
>> are you too afraid to post the truth or
>> are you just too intellectually stunted
>> or lazy to learn them?
RQ: (retorical question)
>> Burned chemicals?
AH:
>> Add basic chemistry to the long list of subjects
>> you know nothing about.
>> Why don't you ask your gods to help you
>> understand how absolutely stupid "burned chemicals" is,
Oxidized Chemicals, more technical but there is nothing
wrong with "burned chemicals"
Educated people use the term, your argument, if it
even is one, is stupid.
---------------------------
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS <P>
Published: August 16, 1984
Seven firefighters suffered minor injuries.........
She said 150 cans of raw chemicals were involved in the fire. Roofing tar -
used to maintain transit barns where trains are repaired - is usually
stored in the area, she said.
The burned chemicals, now considered hazardous waste, will be removed from
the site, she added.
-------------------------
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9B06EED81538F935A2575BC0A962948260
AH:
>> since reading and learning do not appear to be something
>> you alone are currently capable of.
>>> Let us move on to the next experiment,
Assertion:
>> Pretty poor experiment, since it wouldn't test any supported
>> proposition or hypothesis.
Logic supporting the assertion:
--- none.
Assertinon:
(as the implied spokesperson for science)
>> Scientists do not think that the first life came about
>> in this fashion.
Facts supporting the assertion:
--- none.
AH:
>> You would know that if you bothered
>> to learn science instead of lying about it.
>> Science continues to gain a better understanding of
>> how life first appeared on this planet,
Science is not an entity it is a method. In philosophy,
one might group those who follow a method together
and think of them as one, but this more like thinking
of the Body of Christ, as the people who follow the way,
than a term used by advocates of mindless evolution.
AH:
>> while religious fanatics like you continue
>> irrationally maintain that your unsupported stories
>> are somehow better than a supported,
>> but incomplete, scientific explanation.
>> But you have clearly demonstrated you are a cowardly,
>> lying imbecile who is completely ignorant about science,
>> history, and philosophy;
are you working on a SNL skit, or is this really how
you think?
>> and who cannot comprehend basic logic or discern
>> good reasoning from bad.
You make the case, mindless evolution is for idiots.
>>> Answer-NEVER!
AH:
>> Standard creationist dishonest straw man rant.
>> Again, any junior high school debate team could tear this
>> apart before breakfast.
Correctly applied to previous statement.
RQ:
>> Are you sure you are pleasing your gods with
AH:
>> such embarrassing ignorance and lies?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Back to The Experiment:
The view in Fully Gifted Creation Science (FGCS) is
that Reality is programmed, able to manifest life without
intervention to prevent the perversion of free will.
From this perspective, life came from
chemicals in nature, because the properties
of matter are designed to do so, no additional
information needed to be added.
Is it even possible for a reality designed to do so to exist?
It may be an uncomputable busy beaver.
jrh
Clyde Squid
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172554614.7...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:45 pm, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1172541414....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> >> > Gene duplication, mutation, and elimination can easily explain IC.
> > ?>>
> >>> >> A lie although seemingly explaining such is none the less a lie
> >>> >> biased on
> >> >> erroneous conjecture pontificated by a desire to be right.
>
> >> > What about this scenario couldn't happen, thereby making me a liar?
> >> > Groups of genes get duplicated, it's been observed. Those genes are
>
> >> But where did the *life* come from that the genes are replicating?
>
> > I addressed this earlier, and you failed to respond to the points
> > therein. I will not type it again. But once again, you do the
> > standard creationist dance: switch subjects out of the blue in order
> > to run away from the evidence provided.
>
> no; because you try the same old evolutionist dance in trying to skirt the
> subject of where life came from; by saying that you don't have to say
> anything about where life came from because of evolution only addressing
> what happens *after* life was present; that however is the entire point!
>
you've just repeated the charge and ignored the question. What about
my scenario is not feasible?
>
> >> > affected by random mutation differently once that happens, that's been
>
> >> But first life has to occure
>
> > Again, you are not responding to my points, you are trying to change
> > subjects. ID proponents do not state whether any particular IC
> > system (like their favorite, the flagellum) was added or inherent in
> > life anyway, so your point is?
>
> The flagellum, could not be created by evolution; because the parts are IC
> because it was not and IS not inherent in life that is the point and you are
> quite aware of it or else you would not be trying to skirt the issue or
> misdirect by trying to say it was just there all along, which if you agree
> it was created by God then the debate is over!
>
Plenty of evidence supports the evolution of flagella (there are many
different kinds), none supports your magic act. And why do you think
that your explanation wins if evolutionary theory could not explain
something? You still have provided no evidence for your stories.
>
> >> > observed. Altered genes conveying new traits to an organism based on
> >> > this process has been observed (nylonase comes to mind). Thus, there
> >> > is no reason that these events couldn't lead to an IC system over
> >> > enough generations under the right selective pressure. So where was I
> >> > biased? Where was my erroneous conjecture? And I do have the desire
> >> > to be *accurate*, do you?
>
> >> Your erroneous conjecture is in assuming that it could have happned if
> >> life
> >> was not already present! Show how without life having first been there
> >> that
> >> this could have happned.
>
> > ID doesn't state whether IC systems were added or inherent. And I
> > already explained to you why evolution and biogenesis were two
> > different things. You failed to respond to the argument then, but now
> > that I have answered how an IC system could evolve, you bring back the
>
> You have yet to explain how IC system could evolve you only stated that it
> was *just* there!
When you started this debate, I explained why scientists do not have
to have a complete model for how life arose on this planet to
understand that, after it did, evolution took place. You responded to
not a one of those points (go up and look), and changed the argument
to IC. I explained how an IC system could evolve, and you responded
by evading and saying that I haven't shown how life first appeared on
this planet.
> > refuted argument that I have to show how molecules started self-
> > replicating to form the basic structures of life before I can maintain
>
> You have NOT show any such thing
>
> > that IC systems can evolve. And as I have already pointed out,
>
> IC system by definition can NOT evolve
You don't win scientific arguments by defining yourself right. Behe
stated that IC was a system in which removal of any part would render
that system useless. Scientists have shown how such systems can
evolve, and had proposed such systems long before Behe. But you can't
say that the definition of an IC system is one that couldn't have
evolved, and therefore none did. That's circular semantics.
; because they can never be built up
> from either existing parts or be in the system without a reason for the
> system to make them.
> > evolution can occur regardless of whether the first life on earth came
> > about by natural or supernatural processes.
>
> I agree that AFTER God created everything that his creation power being so
> strong continues on in his creations; because of his wishing for his
> creations to be able to adapt to their surrounds and there by increase their
> ability to thrive. This is the dance that evolutions use, they try and say
> "well we don't know where the life came from; but *after* it was here it
> started changing" to which I can only say "Dah!" Of course after God created
> life he instilled a mechanism to enable that life to thrive!
>
Scientists provide conclusions based on evidence. What you just
stated above is conjecture based on tribal mythology. Provide a model
and evidence for it. And if you maintain that life can change after
your supernatural being used magic to put it here, then why couldn't
an IC system have evolved after that happened? That was the point I
made earlier: even if life was first magically poofed here or arose
my natural means, it has evolved since that time.
>
> >> >> > system is duplicated. Since one set of that system is now not under
> >> >> > selection for its original function, it can now be selected towards
>
> >> >> The evidance in the video I cited shows that no such thing could ever
> >> >> happen
>
> >> > Then provide it. You don't win with appeals to a video. What
> >> > evidence showed my scenario was wrong, since you know enough about
> >> > these alleged evidences to know it is wrong? And I thought evidence
> >> > didn't matter, where there was evidence there was no faith? Have you
> >> > evidence but no faith, or no evidence and just faith?
>
> >> I need no evidence; because I have faith;
>
> > Then it is dishonest of you to demand evidence from others when you
> > require none and would accept none. Oh, and keep what you just said in
> > mind for later: I quote it word for word.
>
> Your side is the one requiring evidance for Gods existance
>
Yes it is. You continue to provide none. But you keep asking me for
my evidence when you don't require it and would never accept it.
That's dishonest.
>
> >>but there are those that insist on
> >> having evidence because they have no faith and that is the only reason
> >> for
> >> giving any.
>
> > I demand evidences before I believe anything. Why is this
> > irrational?
>
> I said nothing about your needing evidence being irrational, but like most
> evolutionists you like to try and twist words
>
I take you at your word, and you say I twist them. I have not twisted
your words. Provide evidence that I have. You, on the other hand,
accused me of being dishonest when I said that you valued irrational
faith over evidence. Then I provided evidence where you said you did
just that. Your response later to that evidence is exemplar of this
whole debate: evade and change the subject.
>
> >>As for the video, I posted a link to it some time ago; but now
> >> it seems that that link is no longer valid and that the link was hosting
> >> copyrighted material *without* permission.
>
> > You have provided no evidence; you have provided an excuse as to why
> > you can't link a video you referenced. May I point out to you that I
> > stated earlier that I have read Behe, Demski, and Wells; I know their
> > arguments. Clearly you don't, even after having watched the video,
> > because you can't respond to my points without just putting a link to
> > a video and saying "there!" What's stopping you from using the
> > knowledge you gained, and that you think I don't know, to respond to
> > my points?
>
> See above
>
See what above? What is stopping you from using the knowledge from
the video. If you don't know it, how do you know it disproves my
argument? These are two easy, valid questions: why don't you answer
them?
>
> >>I certainly am not going to
> >> upload copyrighted material that most likely will never be viewed;
> >> because
> >> when the link was valid all any non-believer would say is that they
> >> didn't
> >> need to watch it because they knew any evidence it gave had to be wrong
> >> because it's could not show that which could not be proven.
>
> > Now you presume to speak to what I would and would not do. While I
> > have addressed each of your points one by one, and you have not, *I*
>
> see above
See what above? See the time you did not respond to a single point in
my response but simply changed the subject? You go see above: it's
right there.
> > am the one who wouldn't go to a posted link in a debate. Too funny.
> > Why do you presume this instead of just using the knowledge you gained
> > from this video to address my points? If you can't, then how do you
> > know they are wrong?
>
> >>To which I said
> >> then as now that they just won't accept any evidence contrary to their
> >> belief system.
>
> > That's rich coming from someone who has stated that evidence is
> > irrelevant. I would gladly accept any evidence you could provide.
> > You have provided none.
>
> You of course will not accept anecdotal evidence
>
What rational person would? Is that the only kind of evidence you
have?
>
> >> >> > another. A simple study of basic genetics is all that's required,
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > magic.
>
> >> >> Not magic God
>
> >> > Same thing. I call the uncharacterized super-powers of imaginary
> >> > supernatural beings magic. Sorry you don't like the term.
>
> >> The term was intended to be condescending and you are quite aware of your
> >> using it as such.
>
> > So? Do you use "atheist" and "unbeliever" condescendingly? I am an
> > atheist, and supernatural powers are magic. If you don't like the
> > term, explain to me how poofing animals into existence by a god is no
> > different than poofing an animal into existance by, say, Harry
> > Potter? You may not worship Harry Potter, but the act is the same,
> > no?
>
> The difference is one is a work of fiction and the other an act of God.
I asked you how the act was different, not the source of the act.
>You
> kind just *need* to think that humans in general and their selves in
> particular are the end all and be all and that there is no power higher then
> the human mind.
Now you presume to speak to what I "need." You could just ask why I
think what I think.
>God exists and is as provable
Then prove it. I would be happy with just being provided some
evidence.
>as what your thoughts and
> mind are.
Huh? As provable as my thoughts and mind are? What does that mean?
>I would consider it much more a magic trick for everything to just
> pop into existence *without* any help from God. Life and the universe did
> not just pop into existence of its own accord.
>
Provide evidence then that a super-being did it or directed it.
Otherwise, I'll take the evidence science has and make conclusions
based on it, or just accept not having an answer. Why should I not?
I will not accept or make conclusions based on what I don't know.
That's what ID does. You still haven't answered my question as to why
ID is not a false dilemma. Are you ever going to?
>
> >> >> > But thanks for admitting that you value irrational faith over a
> >> >> > rational existence. At least you're honest.
>
> >> >> Yes I am but you can not say the same
>
> >> > You cannot show where I have been dishonest, so this is just another
> >> > baseless assertion on your part. Pathetic.
>
> >> Not at all and the pathetic one is you; because you either refuse to see
> >> or
> >> worse yet can not see that I was talking about your dishonesty about you
> >> saying that I admitted that I value irrational faith over a rational
> >> existence. So you have shown yourself doubly inaccurate haven't you.
>
> > I can't see what you do not provide. When I asked you why you do not
> > demand the same standards of evidence for your religion as you do for
> > science, you stated, and I quote: "Because believers in God have
> > faith and where there is evidence there is no need for faith." How was
> > I supposed to take this? I took this at your word. In this very last
> > post (I asked you to keep this one in mind), you state: "I need no
> > evidence; because I have faith." It's right there, go up and look. So
> > why am I wrong to point out that you value irrational faith (ie,
> > belief without evidence) over a rational existence again?
>
> It is irrational to think that everything popped into existence from nothing
> with no help
>
Again, you do not address my point, you change the subject. Answer
the question, why was I dishonest in saying that you value irrational
faith over evidence, when the evidence is right there? You accused me
of being dishonest, and you can't even be honest enough to admit
something that is right there in front of your face. How am I
supposed to have a debate with someone who changes the subject out of
the blue, does not respond to my points (although lately you have been
replying to each of them, which I do appreciate), is dishonestly
accuses me of being dishonest, and provides no evidence to back his
claims?
>
> >> > Also, you ignored the rest of my post. Why is IC not a false dilemma
> >> > that demands one ignore all available evidences and also demands only
> >> > one unsupported assertion out of many?
>
> >> I ignored the rest of your post; because it spouts about evolution
> >> without
> >> given credit to evolutions creator which wasn't a scientist but rather
> >> God;
> >> because God created everything and *AFTER* God created everything then
> >> diversity started. God created the world as being old when it was
> >> formed.
> >> Everything God created was an adult including the planet including the
> >> planet containing fossils. God as some try and say did NOT do this in
> >> any
> >> type of attempt to fool anyone; but rather I suspect; because of it being
> >> natural for an adult planet that contains life to have such things.
>
> > So in other words, you couldn't. I have tackled every post you have
> > made thus far point by point, but you don't do so because I don't
>
> wrong, see above an IC system can not evolve; because the parts could not be
> created in a system that didn't need it nor co-opted from another system
> that likewise didn't need it. Even given an eternity such a system would
> not work, it is like the old example of the complex clock mechanism. Put
> all the pieces in a box and no matter how long you shake it , it will NEVER
You have provided no evidence for this; you just continue to assert
it. There are models for how flagella evolved, and no step requires
magic. The following site explains how, with references:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
I will be happy to discuss any particular point they make.
> > believe in your god. I have addressed every point you have made, but
> > you have evaded most of mine, including this last one. Your excuse is
> > your assertion that none of my points could be valid because it
> > doesn't agree with your theology. Pathetic.
> >> Paul
>
> > Clyde
>
> Evolution and people thinking the human kind is the epitome of evolution is
> what is pathetic. Thinking the this universe in all its glory just created
> its self is just not feasible.
No one thinks that the universe was created to glory itself. All I
know is that the universe is. That I have no evidence that the
supernatural beings you worship exist, or took part in its creation,
is not my fault. You have all the time you need to provide such
evidences. When you have any, start a new subject. I will be on
vacation for the next few days. You can take that time to decide what
precise evidence or set of evidence you want to discuss, and I will be
happy to discuss it/them with you.
Clyde
Sugien
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172606060.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I know; but I hold out hope that thy can see the truth and act upon it
before standing before God. It is much like casting pearls before swine;
but in this case you may be right; because I am tiring of beating my head
against a wall. I have far better things to do; but at the very least I my
be running interference here long enough for some believers to have a
discussion uninterrupted by them while they are combining there attacks
against my points.
Sugien
I would think by now you would have come up with some new material
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<SPydnTN-ccmblnvY...@adelphia.com>:
Sugien
Now why would I want to actually lie by asking for forgiveness for something
I didn't do?
Apobetics
> "Apobetics" <apobe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
_____________________________________________________________
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer fools. He simply passed on by
them.
These poor lost souls will answer to Him on the day they die.
And they will certainly die even while they deny so.
It appears that most of these people suffer from narriscism and a high
overdose of 'self-esteem' - deep self love, and worship at the idol of
ME-MYSELF-I
. They are not worth throwing yourself on their granades.
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<h9SdnXqvWdo0wHvY...@adelphia.com>:
repent. I expect you to remain dishonest. I expect you to think that
your god needs lies to defend him.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> I put this forth for your consideration. If as science asserts life evolved
> on earth *after* life was created then it is on science to *prove how* life
> first began. Most that are proponents of evolution side step the issue by
> saying that evolution only says what happen *after* life came into
> existence. That may be all well and good; it does not however show *how*
> life came to be in the first place.
Well done
it took you an awfully long time to get the point
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the creation of either matter or life
The Creationists are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing.
Evolution is entirely about the "origin of species" from primitive life
forms and it is fact rather than theory
As to the origin of matter and of life itself however the religious theory
is crap on that too. I really don't think it was spoken into existence by
a large eternal space goat - which seems to be the essence of your mobs
particularly silly idea of "science"
Thank God they don't teach THAT in schools! The whole world would laugh
at your graduates and disrespect your entire "kultur"
If as science says life evolved from
> lower forms and that they can trace it's origins back why not trace it back
> to *before* there was life and show the point at which lifeless molecules
> and proteins and neculitites became alive and what mechanism was responsible
> for life beginning from elements which are *not* alive.
If you think you can do that without including in your theory a giant
pre-existing space goat (or something similar - like the "trinity")
farting it all into being- do try
Scientists at least are humble in these matters of creation and admit what
they do not yet know. In your case that seems to be a humility you
hillbilly-types have yet to learn
Better put some more cheese out for the sin-eater.
Why can they not
> take the elements which they say were present and *re-create* the life that
> the say continues to evolve?
Unlike you they probably aint clever enough
Written any more pomes yet?
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> First learn to NOT top post then get back to us ok?
learn how to wipe your own bum and do the same Soggy
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
Well why
> did the creation of life stop? Surely such an amazing system that creates
> life from virtually nothing would not just disappear after having created
> the most important thing ever, namely life its self.
>
It constantly amazes me that you are so stupid that you think you know
everything.
Go out into the hillbilly night and look up at the stars.
Way out there there no doubt are places that have the same conditions as
existed in our solar system at the time that life came into being.
And I have little doubt that out there it is likely that life is slowly
coming into being. No doubt the process will take just as long.
Many other people think it likely too - which is why sometimes radio
telescopes scan the sky for a pattern that suggests intelligent life with
a radio level civilisation
When we find it will your Creationist crap crumble? - I doubt it - People
like you can always find one MORE excuse to be completely stupid.
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
I remember that when I was agnostic *I* still did
> most of the same things I do now; but I did so because of how it made me
> look in the eyes of others instead of how it makes me feel inside now.
Yes and you haven't changed except to become even more selfish, arrogant,
and self engrossed.
Instead of seeking the approval of other people you seek the approval of a
self invented and self justified God-image.
Your "God" isn't external at all it is part of your own psyche
Spiritually you have in fact retreated from your agnostic days into a form
of masturbation justified by projections of yourself as a deity.
You aren't Christian at all - you are in fact far further from genuine
faith now than you once were
But hey - your God doesn't mind - because it is you!
So give yourself a divine pat on your back for your courageous stand in
favor of fairy tales and against progress and science
And don't forget to put cheese on the window sill for the sin-eater.
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
*AFTER* God created everything then
> diversity started. God created the world as being old when it was formed.
> Everything God created was an adult including the planet including the
> planet containing fossils. God as some try and say did NOT do this in any
> type of attempt to fool anyone; but rather I suspect; because of it being
> natural for an adult planet that contains life to have such things.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
What a DOPE!!!!
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
>
> Ah, but from where did the life come from to start with?
Interesting question in that if you consider that is a reasonable question
to demand a scientist answer on present knowledge - without which answer
the entire scientific world supposedly collapses - then it is also
reasonable to ask YOU the core religious "origin" question
So OK, Soggy
Where did GOD come from?
And please don't give us the shit about "eternal pre-existence"
If you can't do better than that I suggest you - on your own sick
standards - shut the whole religious freak show down.
+++++++++
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I know; but I hold out hope that thy can see the truth and act upon it
> before standing before God. It is much like casting pearls before swine;
I don't mind being called a "pearl"
But I really don't think you should call God a "swine"
Ralph
Why?? He's still dealing with the two ass***es with which he started. No
need to develop new material.
Ralph
Points????? What points? You haven't made a significant statement since
you've been here.
Phlogeus
<dino...@adelphia.net> wrote:
.
>
> Now why would I want to actually lie by asking for forgiveness for something
> I didn't do?
Just so long as the sin eater gets his cheese
Phlogeus
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer fools. He simply passed on by
> them.
> These poor lost souls will answer to Him on the day they die.
> And they will certainly die even while they deny so.
Who's denying it other than people like you that have us meeting in the
clouds and Jaysus throwing people alive into the fire in the manner the SS
behaved towards little children at Auschwitz?
I don't like your image of God - I find it filthy - sex obsessed - stupid
- and lacking in love. It takes a mentally sick mind to imagine a God
that throws living people into the ovens
And it is for this reason I reject your ideas as the irrational products
of a mentally sick mind
> It appears that most of these people suffer from narriscism and a high
> overdose of 'self-esteem' - deep self love, and worship at the idol of
> ME-MYSELF-I
> . They are not worth throwing yourself on their granades.
Ithink you were better in your previous incarnation as IKnowShitDoYou
You said you were leaving soon but I guess now you are back
How did you like Betalgeuse
Did you have tea with Jaysus?
Oh Brother!
jrh
Back to The Experiment:
The view in Fully Gifted Creation Science (FGCS) is
that Reality is programmed, able to manifest life without
intervention to prevent the perversion of free will.
From this perspective, life came from
chemicals in nature, because the properties
of matter are designed to do so, no additional
information needed to be added.
Is it even possible for a reality designed to do so to exist?
or is it an uncomputable (busy beaver type) problem?
jrh
---------------------------------------------------------------