Kent Hovind
Andromeda
"David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:896bd118c17bba7348f003e65d587a07@TeraNews...
DAVID
I listened to a radio debate between Kent Hovind and Farrell Till and
one thing Hovind kept beating into the ground was "evolution is a
religion" and "creationism is a religion" blah, blah, blah, blah.
What this moron cannot seem to figure out is that religion can be a
very broad term and also can be very narrow in its meaning. "Religion"
has many definitions in Webster's Dictionary and to hop from one
definition of religion to another definition of religion in midstream
is extremely deceptive. The Constitution forbids that the legislative
branch shall pass no law favoring or harming "religion". Here, the
Supreme Court has interpreted religion in its very narrow sense, i.e.
the belief in, and worship of a deity and the attendant obligations
and rituals associated with it. Yes, creationism is definitely a
religious teaching.
What about Evolution? Since evolution falls under no definition of
religion with the possible exception of definition #7 (the zealous
pursuit and involvement in an activity) it can be called a religion in
the very broad sense as when someone zealously pursues it and is
preoccupied with it. In that case, it is a bird of a different color
and doesn't fall under the Constitutional amendment. Had the founding
Fathers meant religion in its broad sense, they would have eliminated
Math, all Science, Grammar, Scholastic Sports, Automotive Mechanics,
Engineering, etc., as these are pursued by some as zealously as some
pursue evolution and would, under Hovind's definition, be called a
religion. Hell, political parties would then be classified as religion
and we couldn't teach our kids civics.
Dave Oldridge
@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de:
This is actually a classic equivocation fallacy. It's a kind of
rhetorical bait-and-switch used by dishonest debaters and is as old as
classical Greek philosophy (which correctly identifies it as a fallacy).
Essentially a proposition is set up under one definition of a word and
then the definition is switched and the claim is made that the proposition
retains its validity. It is such a common bit of rhetorical dishonesty
that the word has actually come into common use to simply mean lying!
Professional creationists seem to be awfully skilled in the use (abuse) of
logical fallacies like this. One has to wonder if there is not,
somewhere, a school out there teaching these people how to debate
dishonestly! Or maybe it's just a standard course in their seminaries or
whatever they call their colleges?
Whatever it is, I want none of it.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Skitter...@shadowwatch.org
Hmm....Maybe they have a big home school for it? ;)
> Whatever it is, I want none of it.
No honest person would.
Skitter the Cat
Raymond E. Griffith
Skitter...@ShadowWatch.org at Skitter...@ShadowWatch.org wrote on
5/1/03 2:53 AM:
Having attended a fundamentalist school (and I am quite fond of my alma
mater -- they are good people who truly want to honor the Lord), I never saw
any course in equivocation.
You have to understand that this is the way many people *think*. They have
grown up with certain perspectives, so that their thinking patterns are
almost genetically predisposed to a certain direction. A good book on the
history of Fundamentalism, The Battle for God, would be profitable to look
at.
They have a fixed perception which they are unable to change (like equating
evolution with abiogenesis). It is an axiom to the YECs that Evolution has
to be a religion. The reason they believe this is because they simply cannot
see someone being dedicated to a *science*. To them, dedication must be a
kind of *faith*.
They also tend to perceive evolutionists the way evolutionists perceive
creationists. Creationists tend to be dishonest and lie about the evidence
because they believe that to admit to the evidence that is there would be a
denial of faith. They believe this so strongly that they fool themselves
into not seeing the evidence that is present! But substitute evolutionists
into those last two sentences and you will get the creationist perspective!
Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances in
genetics and other areas. They see evolution as simply confined to
speculations about origins, as if we cannot possibly test or know or
understand anything about the past. They see it as the religion of science
because, to them, the determination of scientists to learn about and control
the world is a denial of God, His power, and His authority.
>
>> Whatever it is, I want none of it.
>
> No honest person would.
The funny thing is that the creationists say the same thing about the
evolutionists. And they believe it. They honestly believe they are being
honest. They do not have the capability to see how their mental processes
make them treat Scientific data, the Scriptures, and many other things
differently depending upon their comfort level with it.
For example, many fundamentalists claim to read the Scriptures literally,
"for what it says". The fact that they do so selectively and engage in very
liberal interpretations and additions to the meaning quite often is apparent
to everyone -- but themselves. They have grown up with this kind of
thinking, and to them it seems natural and right. The fact that this kind of
thinking would never work in the laboratory never crosses their mind.
So perhaps we should be charitable. I have come to the conclusion that they
can't help it. It would take a miracle to come out from it.
Raymond E. Griffith
>
> Skitter the Cat
David DeMar
<ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in
news:b8puj1$cabuo$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de:
> The Constitution forbids that the legislative
> branch shall pass no law favoring or harming "religion". Here, the
> Supreme Court has interpreted religion in its very narrow sense,
> i.e. the belief in, and worship of a deity and the attendant
> obligations and rituals associated with it.
So, I guess Buddhism isn't a religion because they don't worship a
deity?
Cloud McCloud
<tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
> Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> in genetics and other areas.
Haha! That's funny!
Raymond E. Griffith
It is rather ironic, isn't it? But it is a fact. In researching human
diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
certain diseases much easier.
In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
and actually map black holes.
Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not. In fact,
if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a rate of
evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding anything that
we observe today. The numbers just don't work otherwise. Of course, the
desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
ignore the numbers! Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
So yes, it is funny in a sad sort of way. I understand because I was a
fundamentalist and believed implicitly their literature. I even argued
with my professors about it.
Andromeda
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f32bvgu7hd8db4if...@4ax.com...
> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
> makes it a religion.
>
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
> ___
>
> When Christianity becomes religion,
> it leaves the heart hungry.
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> Don't tell me you believe the end,
> if you don't believe the beginning.
Helps
"Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message
news:asmdb0$ss23f$2...@news.tssrnet.com...
It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed data
avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat of
any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY EVOLUTION
as the mechanism for descent with change.
Survival of the fittest: a tautology
J M
<tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
>Cloud McCloud wrote:
>> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
>> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
>>
>>
>>>Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
>>>sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
>>>in genetics and other areas.
>>
>>
>> Haha! That's funny!
>>
>
>It is rather ironic, isn't it? But it is a fact. In researching human
>diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
>closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
>more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
>of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
>transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
>between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
>certain diseases much easier.
>
It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
time?
>In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
>science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
>happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
>and actually map black holes.
>
>Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
>today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not.
Nonsense. Creation can EASILY acount for the various species. The
varieties within each species would be the only "evolution," depending
on environmental and other factors.
For a LONG time, the "scientists" believed that there was some
evolution at work in London and the surrounding area where the dark
moths and butterflys were found only in one area and the lightly
colored moths and butterflys were found only in another area.
Then someone with some SENSE put together that the birds could more
easily see the moths and butterflys that didn't blend into their
environment. DUH!
One scientist a few years ago wrote back to his bosses that he'd found
the duckbilled platypus. Other "scientists" including his bosses
scoffed. "It's not POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist. Stop
drinking so much, stay off the local dope, and come home!"
When he came home WITH the duckbilled platypus he'd found, the
"scientists" who'd laughed stopped laughing.
There will NEVER be any "evidence" found for creation so long as
"scientists" don't look for.it. Imagine the difficulty of finding the
needle in the haystack if you aren't searching for it.
In fact, if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a
rate of evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding
anything that we observe today.
Your point? YOU as other pseudo-scientists ASSUME that life is
"evolving" or growing at the same rate now as it always did. Not
necessarily so. And that comes from a nuclear physicist friend of mine
who worked on the Manhattan Project. I'm assuming you know what the
Manhattan Project was. In fact, one of the last times I saw him, he
was working on a NEW "Fat Man".
The numbers just don't work otherwise. Of course, the
>desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
>ignore the numbers!
Ditto the evolutionists who will go to practially ANY lengths to prove
God/The Creator doesn't exist.
You also don't account for how many scientists are Creationists, such
as my nuclear physicist friend as mentioned above. And you forget, in
your ranting against creationism that at least 3 of the shuttle
astronauts who recently died in the latest shuttle disaster were
Creationist Christians.
Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
>cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
Ditto. There has been EXHAUSTIVE study of creation/science. You
believe what you choose to believe, we do as well. But your mistake is
to believe erroneously that there is NO proof whatever for creation;
that simply isn't so. We continue to prove creation, and the
pseudo-scientist evolutionists go back to the drawing board to "prove"
once again that creation isn't true. This is merely an attack on God,
not on science.
Moon dust is a proof of a very young universe; a can of tuna fish can
be used to disprove evolution and prove creation. And there is valid
evidence that, not only did man live concurrently with the dinosaurs
(that means at the same time as), but some dinosaurs--the smaller
ones, even live today.
Some lizards are ANCIENT lifeforms. Scientists cannot date the age of
sharks, other than they've been around "pre-historically", and
crocodiles and alligators also qualify.
Another life form the "scientists" ignore is the teradactyls that are
alive and well in the jungles of South America. Ignoring those facts
that poke the largest holes in your theories is NOT science.
>
>So yes, it is funny in a sad sort of way. I understand because I was a
>fundamentalist and believed implicitly their literature. I even argued
>with my professors about it.
What changed your mind? It wasn't science!
John W
J M
wrote:
And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
culture locally.
By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us. Yet even the Downs Syndrome
folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
of 100, she can contribute.
Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
it gained CRITICAL praise.
Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
an unproven one at that..
John W
Andromeda
"J M" <jus...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:ohq2bv45aggp0h1gn...@4ax.com...
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
Yes, Beethoven ...
Michael
<tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
> Cloud McCloud wrote:
> > On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> > <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
> > news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
> >
> >
> >>Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> >>sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> >>in genetics and other areas.
> >
> >
> > Haha! That's funny!
> >
>
> It is rather ironic, isn't it? But it is a fact. In researching human
> diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
> closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
> more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
> of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
> transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
> between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
> certain diseases much easier.
Not sure that it has anything to do with evolution, the DNA of mice and
men have a common Creator.
>
> In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
> science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
> happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
> and actually map black holes.
Stars do not evolve anymore than a toddler evolved into a adult. What a
toddler does is already programmed into the DNA by the Creator, there is
no process of evolution taking place. Accurately map black holes? No
one has yet proved that they even exist, and their theory is based upon
physics calculations in the legacy of Einstein, not evolution.
>
> Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
> today's world,
Of course, the Creator is an equally valid alternative.
whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not. In fact,
> if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a rate of
> evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding anything that
> we observe today.
So exactly where do we observe family to family evolution today? Are you
saying that tomatoes are morphing into giraffes again? Intraspecies
variations all pre programmed into the DNA is observed, but that is not
evolution.
Where can we see this? If there is no evolution, whether or not one
believes in the flood, there is no need for evolution to have occurred
withing any time period.
The numbers just don't work otherwise.
Of course not, there was no evolution.
Of course, the
> desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
> ignore the numbers!
What numbers? If the species and families were Created, the numbers
simply make fundie evolutionists fudge or ignor the reality.
Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
> cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
Fundie evolutionary mindset has been trained so that they
cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
>
> So yes, it is funny in a sad sort of way. I understand because I was a
> fundamentalist and believed implicitly their literature. I even argued
> with my professors about it.
You were smozzed. That is funny in a sad sort of way. BTW if you were
really a fundamentalist and not a troll, you would have said "I understand
because I was a fundamentalist and believed implicitly my literature."
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Dave Oldridge
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 10:10:28 -0400, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
>
>>Cloud McCloud wrote:
>>> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>>> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
>>> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
>>>>sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
>>>>in genetics and other areas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Haha! That's funny!
>>>
>>
>>It is rather ironic, isn't it? But it is a fact. In researching human
>>diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
>>closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
>>more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
>>of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
>>transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
>>between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
>>certain diseases much easier.
>>
>
> It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
> species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
> time?
Hmmm. Lessee. You're claiming that the mutation that gives anthropoidea a
need to eat vitamin-C or suffer from scurvy was CREATED separately in both
chimps and humans and that the system was partially constructed with the
correct genes for three of the necessary enzymes and then broken by
smashing up the same gene in both species. On purpose? And you want us
to WORSHIP the idiot who did this?
Personally, I'd rather accept this as evidence that shows we descend from
a common ancestor. Especially since it's accompanied by literally
hundreds of similar examples of errors that are copied into both genomes.
Your notion seems to be blasphemous.
>>In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
>>science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
>>happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
>>and actually map black holes.
>>Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
>>today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not.
> Nonsense. Creation can EASILY acount for the various species. The
> varieties within each species would be the only "evolution," depending
> on environmental and other factors.
Creation doesn't account for the genetics. Not unless you want to imply a
horrible blasphemy.
> For a LONG time, the "scientists" believed that there was some
> evolution at work in London and the surrounding area where the dark
> moths and butterflys were found only in one area and the lightly
> colored moths and butterflys were found only in another area.
> Then someone with some SENSE put together that the birds could more
> easily see the moths and butterflys that didn't blend into their
> environment. DUH!
Which is, actually, natural selection at work. Moths that hang out in the
wrong coloured places end up being bird food more often than those that
blend. That's exactly what Darwin wrote about.
> One scientist a few years ago wrote back to his bosses that he'd found
> the duckbilled platypus. Other "scientists" including his bosses
> scoffed. "It's not POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist. Stop
> drinking so much, stay off the local dope, and come home!"
>
> When he came home WITH the duckbilled platypus he'd found, the
> "scientists" who'd laughed stopped laughing.
Of course. Physical evidence always trumps bookworms.
> There will NEVER be any "evidence" found for creation so long as
> "scientists" don't look for.it. Imagine the difficulty of finding the
> needle in the haystack if you aren't searching for it.
Believe me, "scientists" are looking for it. If there were any scientific
evidence for special creation, don't you think the professional
creationists would be trumpeting it from the rooftops? Instead they are
reduced to telling one fib after another attacking evolution.
> In fact, if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a
> rate of evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding
> anything that we observe today.
>
> Your point? YOU as other pseudo-scientists ASSUME that life is
> "evolving" or growing at the same rate now as it always did. Not
No, that's not an assumption. The rate measured from the fossil record is
about .6 darwins and that's the same rate we're observing in nature now.
> necessarily so. And that comes from a nuclear physicist friend of mine
> who worked on the Manhattan Project. I'm assuming you know what the
> Manhattan Project was. In fact, one of the last times I saw him, he
> was working on a NEW "Fat Man".
Apparently your friend is good at physics. He should either steer clear
of biology or do his homework before pontificating, though. His
qualifications are probably not as good as mine and MY first science is
physics.
>> The numbers just don't work otherwise. Of course, the
>>desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
>>ignore the numbers!
>
> Ditto the evolutionists who will go to practially ANY lengths to prove
> God/The Creator doesn't exist.
Wrong again. Science doesn't care about your theology (even though the
Church would probably deem you heterodox). It doesn't care about MY
theology either (and the Church would probably deem mine orthodox).
Science is the study of PHYSICAL nature. Its evidence is physical in
nature and its findings are about physical nature, not about theology.
> You also don't account for how many scientists are Creationists, such
> as my nuclear physicist friend as mentioned above. And you forget, in
> your ranting against creationism that at least 3 of the shuttle
> astronauts who recently died in the latest shuttle disaster were
> Creationist Christians.
Hmmmm.....sure you're not exaggerating? I mean ALL Christians believe
that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. What
we're discussing here, though is the physical events that mark that
creation.
>> Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
>>cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
> Ditto. There has been EXHAUSTIVE study of creation/science. You
I find that difficult to believe. The bulk of creation science so-called
that I read is very superficial. It tends to jump to conclusions on the
basis of very poorly-understood evidence, as long as the conclusions seem
to support the theological claims of the heresy.
> believe what you choose to believe, we do as well. But your mistake is
> to believe erroneously that there is NO proof whatever for creation;
> that simply isn't so. We continue to prove creation, and the
> pseudo-scientist evolutionists go back to the drawing board to "prove"
> once again that creation isn't true. This is merely an attack on God,
> not on science.
I have yet to see any hard evidence for creation that you could test
scientifically. What I see a lot of is stuff like this:
> Moon dust is a proof of a very young universe; a can of tuna fish can
> be used to disprove evolution and prove creation. And there is valid
> evidence that, not only did man live concurrently with the dinosaurs
> (that means at the same time as), but some dinosaurs--the smaller
> ones, even live today.
There is about 4.5 billion years worth of moon dust. That's right. You
have been lied to by professional liars who have been corrected over and
over again. Sensible creationists don't use this hustle any more because
it stopped working years ago. You see the astronauts actually left
apparatus on the moon that measures the ACTUAL infall and guess what, it's
quite consistent with other estimates of the moon's age.
I have no idea how you could disprove evolution with a can of tuna.
Sounds like you're peddling something a lot smellier than tuna to me.
> Some lizards are ANCIENT lifeforms. Scientists cannot date the age of
> sharks, other than they've been around "pre-historically", and
> crocodiles and alligators also qualify.
Not so.
> Another life form the "scientists" ignore is the teradactyls that are
> alive and well in the jungles of South America. Ignoring those facts
> that poke the largest holes in your theories is NOT science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Nobody has found any such thing. And even if we did, it
would be proof of the survival of pterodactyls, not disproof of evolution.
>>So yes, it is funny in a sad sort of way. I understand because I was a
>>fundamentalist and believed implicitly their literature. I even argued
>>with my professors about it.
>
> What changed your mind? It wasn't science!
Actually what blew me right off of fundamentalism in my youth was the
preacher standing up in his pulpit and preaching hatred of every religion
but our own pathetic little sect. The science was causing me doubts, but
he made me certain. I suffered at their hands, and would have probably
ended up an agnostic or atheist if God had not directly intervened and put
me to work in HIS cause. But that's another story.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 11:10:22 -0500, "Helps" <wcl...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message
>>news:asmdb0$ss23f$2...@news.tssrnet.com...
>>> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>>> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
>>> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
>>>
>>> > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of
>>> > the sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great
>>> > advances in genetics and other areas.
>>>
>>> Haha! That's funny!
>>
>>It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed
>>data avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the
>>throat of any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
>>BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY
>>EVOLUTION as the mechanism for descent with change.
>>Survival of the fittest: a tautology
>>
> And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
You really do like to display your ignorance blatantly, don't you?
> Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
> Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
>
> Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
> Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
Not me. Survival of the fittest is not a program for action. It simply
happens. The child with a mutated gene that cannot metabolize sugar dies
in the womb too early to call it a miscarriage. Sad? Maybe. True? Yep!
Happens more than we like to think. And trillions of sperm and billions
of ova are lost to human reproduction every month. Blind or not, all of
these people were successful at surviving. Beethoven has living
descendants.
> Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
That's nice.
> I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> culture locally.
Hmmmm...you'd probably get me to agree to the first part of that, though
you are a bit more coherent than the average creationist who posts in
these echoes.
> By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us. Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> of 100, she can contribute.
And many of them do.
> Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
> seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> it gained CRITICAL praise.
>
> Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> an unproven one at that..
No, it's more of a tautology than a theory. The genes that survive to
reproduce themselves are the "fittest." Human ideas about fitness may not
have much to do with that particular reality. Who is fittest? The macho
warrior who goes out and gets himself killed without having any children,
or the girl who stays home and is mother to three children, raising them
to be successful parents themselves?
Evolution says the girl is.
--
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
Some Buddhists would argue exactly that. But Buddha was somewhat non-
commital on the subject of deities. Basically he said that unless you
were enlightened, talking about deities was entirely meaningless
speculation.
Roadrunner
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
You really think all that. That I call ignorance! It's completely besides
the point.
>
> >
> >> Whatever it is, I want none of it.
> >
> > No honest person would.
>
> The funny thing is that the creationists say the same thing about the
> evolutionists. And they believe it. They honestly believe they are being
> honest. They do not have the capability to see how their mental processes
> make them treat Scientific data, the Scriptures, and many other things
> differently depending upon their comfort level with it.
>
> For example, many fundamentalists claim to read the Scriptures literally,
> "for what it says". The fact that they do so selectively and engage in
very
> liberal interpretations and additions to the meaning quite often is
apparent
> to everyone -- but themselves. They have grown up with this kind of
> thinking, and to them it seems natural and right. The fact that this kind
of
> thinking would never work in the laboratory never crosses their mind.
>
> So perhaps we should be charitable. I have come to the conclusion that
they
> can't help it. It would take a miracle to come out from it.
Is that so? I'm not a christian, however what I do know is that evolution
is a fraude. The facts of this earth tell a very different story.
Steven J.
>
> >Survival of the fittest: a tautology
>
>
> And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
>
Note that survival of the fittest is not really a tautology -- that
is, the fittest are not defined, retroactively, as "whatever
survives." Survival of the fittest means that some variations within
a population help individuals (in that environment -- a trait which is
fitter in one environment may be less fit in another) leave more
descendants, consistently. That is, survival is not random with
respect to hereditary variation. It's better for mammals to have
thick white fur in the arctic winter than thin, brown fur. Mutations
which tend to make their fur thicker or whiter will be consistently
favored. This is why the peppered moth is a favored example of
natural selection -- you can look at the pictures (the black and grey
moths on soot-covered and lichen-covered bark, respectively), and
*see* why one color scheme is fitter in one environment, and less fit
in the other.
Note also that survival of the fittest is not a moral principle. It
is a description of how the world works, not how evolutionary
biologists would like it to work. You can't reason from "mindless
nature wouldn't favor individuals with this trait" to "therefore *I*
shouldn't favor them, either." Any decision you make regarding
selection is as "natural" as any other; you can't serve the
(nonexistent, as far as we can tell) goals of natural selection.
>
> Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
> Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
>
Strictly speaking, for that to be true blindness would have to be
hereditary (since natural selection applies to gene frequencies within
a population), and blind individuals would have to have fewer
descendants than those without the allele (gene) for blindness.
>
> Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
> Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
>
Well, logically, if you were, you wouldn't miss them. Since they're
here, natural selection says nothing about how they should be treated.
>
> Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
>
You seem, again, to be confusing natural selection with a moral code
-- trying to derive "ought" statements from "is" statements alone.
This does not work.
>
> I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> culture locally.
>
> By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us. Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> of 100, she can contribute.
>
Natural selection is not about contributions to society, or the rights
of individuals. It is about how populations change over time, because
not all genes are equally likely to be passed to descendants.
>
> Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
> seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> it gained CRITICAL praise.
>
> Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> an unproven one at that..
>
Natural selection no more tells us to discriminate against the
handicapped, than gravitational theory tells us to push them off
buildings.
>
> John W
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
don't. All versions have, however, the "attendant obligations and
rituals." All deal with how humans *ought* to live.
-- Steven J.
David Lee
Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
makes it a religion.
David Lee
No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not make
it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
made up out of thin air by Creationists. If I believe on "faith" that
my car will start up when I turn the key that does NOT magically make
it a religion. If I believe, on "faith", that the I will get shocked
if I stick a wire in the electric outlet in my room that does not make
it a religion. You can stomp your foot, shake your fist, contort your
face and insist a thousand times that believing anything on faith
makes that a religion you better back it up with a defintion out of a
dictionary and stop making up your own. The only time faith becomes a
religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
Consider this example. You and I are on the 64th floor of a Manhattan
skyscraper and there is no balcony. You, on "faith" step out and
plummet to your death. Your "faith" that there was a balcony there
didn't change the fact there was none there. That is the kind of faith
Creationists have. Blind Faith.
Now there is another kind of "faith" falsely so called, but I will use
it anyway, for sake of argument. Scientific "faith" applies when I see
a balcony attached to the side of the building. Due to my past
experiences with balconies I have built up a number of experiences and
have well grounded "faith" that this balcony will hold my weight.
Unlike your foolish plunge to death, I exercise "faith" based on
experience and step out unto the balcony. Is it possible that my
"faith" could fail me? Yes, it is. This balcony could be the one that
gives way, sending me to my death. But I have a reasonable expectation
due to life's experience and I would be a fool to shun balconies on
the mere possibility it would not hold my weight.
Now here is an assignment for you Dave. Without going to
fundamentalistic, Creationistic Dictionaries, make the effort to use a
REAL dictionary, one that is used by scholars of all stripes and the
rank and file of the english speaking world. Find the definition that
says just believing something on "faith" makes that a religion. I
don't want to hear your foolish opinions, I want a definition. You are
NOT God. Don't try to act like it. You don't make the decision on the
meaning of the word. If you want to get together with your
fundamentalist co-horts and write your own damn dictionary.
Faith becomes a religion only when applied to a theistic pursuit.
Science can be a religion, but not because of "faith". If one is
consumed with desire and pursues science with the desire one would
pursue a God, then, to *him*, science is a religion, but it is a
different *definition* of religion. So grab a logic book, turn to the
section on logical fallacies, and read the section on "equivocation"
and read it, study it, digest it. Then, maybe, just maybe, you will
cease making an ass out of yourself. Not all words are locked unto the
same definition. "Religion" can mean something in one sentence and
something else in another. For example, baseball is a "religion" to
me. Baseball does not require faith, just devotion. I really feel
sorry for you. You are so deceived and you are willing to use logical
fallacies such as the fallacy of equivocation to try to score points.
It will not work with me.
I have faith you will continue to make inane posts on these
newsgroups. That doesn't make it a religion. Look up the Bible
definition of religion. It appears in the KJV and has its definition
in the Strong's concordance. You can use that if you wish. But don't
make up your own defintions of religion. And if you persist, well dump
your s@#t on someone else, not me. I don't cater to intellectual
morons.
And by the way, take your buns over to talk.origins and try some of
those silly arguments over there. If you have been there already, try,
try again.
I get so sick of these morons who think theyy know so much about
evolution and science but really know nothing. Dave, please get
Pastor Dave Raymond wrote:
___
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
-------------------
David Lee
Go read what the Bible says about pure religion. You haven't a clue
what you are talking about. And, again, read in a dictionary what
"religion" means, not what you WANT it to mean. I get so sick of these
Christians who say "Christianity is NOT a religion, it is a
relationship." Well, it may be a relationship, but that doesn't change
the cold hard fact it is also a religion, as declared in the Bible
itself and in any dictionary. But Christians of this stripe ignore
definitions and create their own. But when it is convenient, they will
adhere to a dictionary and insist you use the meaning of the word
found in it. I remember a debate Mr. Hovind had with an atheist.
Hovind used the dictionary to claim the proper defintion of atheist
was to state positively there is no God. He defended that position
tenaciously by repeating what the definiton was. Less than 30 minutes
later, he repeated the same charge that Pastor Dave made. He refused
to listen to the dictionary definition and was challenged to find his
spin on the word "religion" in the dictionary. He refused. I think
Hovind is basically dishonest.
Oh Dave, spend some time on your knees and ask God to give you
understanding, and petition Him for wisdom while you are at it..
-------------------
David Lee
Die Moralitaet ist das Kind von dem Erbarmen und dem Mitleid. Der
gesunde Menschenverstand und Herr Weishet sind dessen Grossvaeter, die
Einfuehlung und die Liebe sind die Grossmuetter.
Roadrunner
> Pastor Dave barfed:
> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
> makes it a religion.
> No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not make
> it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
> religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
> it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
> made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only time faith becomes a
> religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
World Book dictionary: 'a particular system of religious belief and worship'
The deity would be 'evolution'
Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but evolution
I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
Raymond E. Griffith
peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:17 PM:
Well then, what are you? And if you don't believe in evolution, why do you
support the "Christian" view of creation as espoused by Christian
fundamentalists? After all, you put up Hovind's web site.
It does not seem reasonable for you to say you are not a Christian but
support the Christian fundamentalist version of creationism. So, what are
you?
Andromeda
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
> Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
evolution
> I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
You say you're not a Christian... you sound like one.
What is *godlike* about the big bang?
Were the first one-celled organisms on earth (4bya), "god's children" in the
eyes of evolutionists?
What evolutionist have you lately seen, sacrificing animals or babies to
un-named god or gods. For this cause, it is not a religion, no more than
say, the multiplication tables or chemistry or physics, or calculus. There's
as much *religion* found in evolution to evolutionists, as any of us see
god(s) out of the thin air...
Meanwhile, please explain what you're referring to, when you've stated
evolution is not scientific? What's unscientific about it...? the one-celled
organisms four billion years ago, or the dinosaurs 65 million years ago...
or was it man, a mere 4 million years ago. Sounds like evolution to me.
Andromeda
More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public library
computer?
Roadrunner
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BAD744A6.4104C7%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
Ever heard of common sense? You look at the physical evidence on this planet
and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely based on
logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or the creationism
idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which you then can
categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It is also of no
basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's much more interesting
to study WHY people believe the things they do.
Roadrunner
"Andromeda" <ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in message
news:b8si9p$ct30s$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
>
> > Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
> evolution
> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
>
> You say you're not a Christian... you sound like one.
So, you are saying that I sound like a Christian for reason of me rejecting
the evolution theory?
What's wrong with common sense?
>
> What is *godlike* about the big bang?
> Were the first one-celled organisms on earth (4bya), "god's children" in
the
> eyes of evolutionists?
> What evolutionist have you lately seen, sacrificing animals or babies to
> un-named god or gods. For this cause, it is not a religion, no more than
> say, the multiplication tables or chemistry or physics, or calculus.
There's
> as much *religion* found in evolution to evolutionists, as any of us see
> god(s) out of the thin air...
That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of ours.
Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>
> Meanwhile, please explain what you're referring to, when you've stated
> evolution is not scientific? What's unscientific about it...? the
one-celled
> organisms four billion years ago, or the dinosaurs 65 million years ago...
> or was it man, a mere 4 million years ago. Sounds like evolution to me.
Scientific is provable to be true, without reasonable doubt. All dating
methods are based on presumptions ans unchanged conditions. it at least has
been proven dat they were not always the same and therefore the datings are
quite fallible.
>
> www.skeptical-christian.net
>
>
Roadrunner
> More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public library
> computer?
>
> www.skeptical-christian.net
>
>
I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why should
he.
http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
Raymond E. Griffith
peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:52 PM:
Yes, I have heard of common sense. I use it, too. And each one of Hovind's
physical reasons for creationism on the web page you posted is flawed or
outdated. It contains the same old *LIES* that has marked the creationist
movement and its leaders from the 1960s. Many of the arguments on this page
are arguments abandoned by ICR, an acknowledged leader in the Creationist
movement.
But sorry, I think that you probably are a Christian, posing as a
non-Christian in order to make a point. Would that be a sheep in wolves'
clothing? As for putting you in a box, why, I'll feel as free to put you in
a box as you feel free to put me into one.
However, I invite you to use your stunning intellect to discuss the
evidences for creation. Please prepare your scientific evidences, and be
ready to discuss the implications they present. Be ready also to discuss
issues such as the dates your evidences are from, and what the most recent
research in the matter is.
By the way, sir. How about a bit of personal information? Age, education?
Anything that would mark you as a person of expertise in a certain area?
Even the creationist leaders claim their doctorates, you know. So a bit of
knowledge about whom I am dealing with would be welcome.
Andromeda
> That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
> system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of ours.
> Evolution is not provable, That's all.
Not provable? Neither is religion.
Since you define evolution as *religion*.
Please define what science is then.
Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
were not always the same and therefore the datings are
> quite fallible.
>
So is prayer sometimes.
Andromeda
Well, I didn't find you, but I sure found Kent Hovind listed at the top.
>
Roadrunner
planet
> > and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely based on
> > logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or the
creationism
> > idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which you then can
> > categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It is also of no
> > basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's much more
interesting
> > to study WHY people believe the things they do.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I have heard of common sense. I use it, too. And each one of Hovind's
> physical reasons for creationism on the web page you posted is flawed or
> outdated. It contains the same old *LIES* that has marked the creationist
> movement and its leaders from the 1960s. Many of the arguments on this
page
> are arguments abandoned by ICR, an acknowledged leader in the Creationist
> movement.
Common sense did not abandon them...
>
> But sorry, I think that you probably are a Christian, posing as a
> non-Christian in order to make a point. Would that be a sheep in wolves'
> clothing? As for putting you in a box, why, I'll feel as free to put you
in
> a box as you feel free to put me into one.
I have not accepted Christ as my saviour as Christians do. I do not pray and
I do not visit any church for that purpose. Putting in a box, creates a
fixed condition. Objectivity has the tendency to vanish if we do so. I did
not put you in any box, you say I did, this is not the same.
>
> However, I invite you to use your stunning intellect to discuss the
> evidences for creation. Please prepare your scientific evidences, and be
> ready to discuss the implications they present. Be ready also to discuss
> issues such as the dates your evidences are from, and what the most recent
> research in the matter is.
Again, is that of any importance? Why are you so eager to defend your view?
I simply urge people not to be fixated about anything. You are assuming I am
Christian when I am not. As evolutionist assume this universe is billions of
years of old when this is not provable.
>
> By the way, sir. How about a bit of personal information? Age, education?
> Anything that would mark you as a person of expertise in a certain area?
> Even the creationist leaders claim their doctorates, you know. So a bit of
> knowledge about whom I am dealing with would be welcome.
I put out Kent Hovind's seminar on my homepage, there is some data about me
too there. Age? Who cares, again putting in some box. Education? Common
sense is not based on knowledge, it is simply an ability to deduct. Children
are often much smarter then grown-ups even with their may be limited factual
knowledge.
>
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
> > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
ours.
> > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>
> Not provable? Neither is religion.
> Since you define evolution as *religion*.
> Please define what science is then.
> Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
It's the way these are interpreted, what makes up the religion. Never the
fossiles themselves.
>
> were not always the same and therefore the datings are
> > quite fallible.
> >
>
> So is prayer sometimes.
I don't pray!
David Jensen
in <Mhksa.6445$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
>
>"Andromeda" <ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in message
>news:b8si9p$ct30s$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
>>
>> > Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
>> evolution
>> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
>>
>> You say you're not a Christian... you sound like one.
>
>So, you are saying that I sound like a Christian for reason of me rejecting
>the evolution theory?
Some sort of religiously biased writer.
>What's wrong with common sense?
Common sense, unaffected by knowledge is a special kind of foolishness.
Common sense tells us that nuclear weapons don't exist, that the sun
goes around the earth, that the sun is not a fusion reaction. Common
sense is limited and appealing to it is a limitation.
>> What is *godlike* about the big bang?
>> Were the first one-celled organisms on earth (4bya), "god's children" in
>the
>> eyes of evolutionists?
>> What evolutionist have you lately seen, sacrificing animals or babies to
>> un-named god or gods. For this cause, it is not a religion, no more than
>> say, the multiplication tables or chemistry or physics, or calculus.
>There's
>> as much *religion* found in evolution to evolutionists, as any of us see
>> god(s) out of the thin air...
>
>That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
>system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of ours.
>Evolution is not provable, That's all.
The theory of evolution is the model that best fits all of the evidence
about the history of life on earth. As with all scientific theories,
that means that it is proven in a legal or testing sense, but not in a
formal or logical sense.
>> Meanwhile, please explain what you're referring to, when you've stated
>> evolution is not scientific? What's unscientific about it...? the
>one-celled
>> organisms four billion years ago, or the dinosaurs 65 million years ago...
>> or was it man, a mere 4 million years ago. Sounds like evolution to me.
>
>Scientific is provable to be true, without reasonable doubt.
What?
>All dating methods are based on presumptions ans unchanged conditions.
That is not a presumption, but an observation about the behavior of the
universe. If you have contrary evidence, provide it, your mindless
speculation is not a valid objection.
> it at least has
>been proven dat they were not always the same and therefore the datings are
>quite fallible.
How fallible? What are the the error bars?
David Jensen
>> > That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
>> > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
>ours.
>> > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>>
>> Not provable? Neither is religion.
>> Since you define evolution as *religion*.
>> Please define what science is then.
>> Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
>
>It's the way these are interpreted, what makes up the religion. Never the
>fossiles themselves.
Please provide a shred of evidence to support your wild assertions.
>> were not always the same and therefore the datings are
>> > quite fallible.
>> >
>>
>> So is prayer sometimes.
>
>I don't pray!
I guess you just live under a bridge.
Roadrunner
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3sm3bvs1ooeknhbph...@4ax.com...
Get educated first. You are only opposing but not adding anything to it.
You will find some data here:
http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.html
Why is it always so that those who support get so sarcastic about things,
are they afraid of something. What do they want to prove?
Common sense is logical deduction, no more, no less......
Roadrunner
Why the sarcasm??
David Jensen
I am educated about Slimeball Hovind. He is not a doctor, his PhD is a
fraud. He knows nothing about science and teaches nonsense in place of
it. He has a fairly long rap sheet.
Anyone who thinks that Hovind's nonsense is educational was miseducated
as a child.
>Why is it always so that those who support get so sarcastic about things,
>are they afraid of something. What do they want to prove?
>
>Common sense is logical deduction, no more, no less......
As the saying goes Garbage In Garbage Out. That's why common sense
applied to ignorance is worthless.
David Jensen
>"David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> Pastor Dave barfed:
>> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
>> makes it a religion.
>
>> No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not make
>> it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
>> religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
>> it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
>> made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only time faith becomes a
>> religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
>
>World Book dictionary: 'a particular system of religious belief and worship'
>The deity would be 'evolution'
The claim is false. Evolution is something that has happened in the past
and is happening today. It was discovered about 150 years ago and all of
the evidence gathered since then has confirmed it.
>Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but evolution
>I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
I suppose Hovind isn't really a Christian either, but your behavior
appears to be religiously motivated.
David Jensen
Once again, we see that those who support knowledge and science are
willing to use their own names, while the forces of ignorance hide
behind pseudonyms.
David Jensen
The Ignorant Mystic?
Roadrunner
Again sarcasm, and empty words. Kent's PhD is basically of nó importance,
I've seen evolutionist's debating with him and getting overwhelmed, not
knowing what to say anymore. Much more convincing.
I wrote a piece about my findings about this controvery, you may want or may
not want to look at it. I'm going in for the night (or rather morning)
http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
Roadrunner
Really? I give freely my homepage and other information about myself. Waht
did you do?
Again sarcasm and empty words to cover up ignorance
Raymond E. Griffith
peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 10:26 PM:
Hmmm. I really doubt that you are truly *objective*. Now I believe that
reality exists no matter what our perceptions might be. This is why science
is careful to measure, to repeat observations, and to find the facts. These
facts are verified by further observations.
>>
>> However, I invite you to use your stunning intellect to discuss the
>> evidences for creation. Please prepare your scientific evidences, and be
>> ready to discuss the implications they present. Be ready also to discuss
>> issues such as the dates your evidences are from, and what the most recent
>> research in the matter is.
>
> Again, is that of any importance? Why are you so eager to defend your view?
> I simply urge people not to be fixated about anything.
So for you, "truth" does not exist? I rather see things differently.
> You are assuming I am
> Christian when I am not. As evolutionist assume this universe is billions of
> years of old when this is not provable.
Actually, it is quite reasonable, given the evidences of age. "Proof" is the
subject of mathematics or of whisky. Science wants evidence, the facts, the
real world and how it works. There is sufficient evidence of old age to
swamp any objections or evidences of young age.
>
>>
>> By the way, sir. How about a bit of personal information? Age, education?
>> Anything that would mark you as a person of expertise in a certain area?
>> Even the creationist leaders claim their doctorates, you know. So a bit of
>> knowledge about whom I am dealing with would be welcome.
>
> I put out Kent Hovind's seminar on my homepage, there is some data about me
> too there. Age? Who cares, again putting in some box. Education? Common
> sense is not based on knowledge, it is simply an ability to deduct.
Heh. OK, now I can "box" you. The ability to deduct is based upon knowledge.
There is no deduction without a knowledge of the general, and there is no
induction without a knowledge of the specific. If you have no knowledge, you
have no deductive ability worth mentioning.
> Children
> are often much smarter then grown-ups even with their may be limited factual
> knowledge.
Oh, please stop! I can't take so much humor!
Some children may be smarter than some grown ups. So what? "Often" does not
make a general case or a rule. I have often observed children who thought
they were smarter than grown-ups, though -- and have seen them make complete
fools of themselves. Age and experience does have its advantages.
Well, if you believe that evidence is unimportant, and that pure thought
without knowledge is preferable, you go right ahead with your fantasies.
>>
>
>
David Jensen
Because I have a hard time believing that you actually take the nonsense
you write seriously. If you have any familiarity with science, you know
that Hovind is hopelessly and dishonestly wrong. That is why I think
that you are just having us on.
Roadrunner
Then yu've got the wrong impression.....
David Jensen
>
>"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:gqn3bv0lhoao1ij48...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote
>> in <c9lsa.6453$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
...
>> >Common sense is logical deduction, no more, no less......
>>
>> As the saying goes Garbage In Garbage Out. That's why common sense
>> applied to ignorance is worthless.
>
>Again sarcasm, and empty words. Kent's PhD is basically of nó importance,
>I've seen evolutionist's debating with him and getting overwhelmed, not
>knowing what to say anymore. Much more convincing.
Hovind hasn't ever won a scientific discussion.
>I wrote a piece about my findings about this controvery, you may want or may
>not want to look at it. I'm going in for the night (or rather morning)
>http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
Young Earth Creationism is a religious belief. What does it have to do
with science?
David Jensen
That was after I made my comment. It appeared to me that in this one,
you were just being coy. Sorry.
>Again sarcasm and empty words to cover up ignorance
No. Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science. That is a
fact. There is a secondary problem that adherents to this religious
teaching want to impose their religious teaching on science education in
the US. That is a problem.
David Jensen
What non-religious reason do you have for trying to persuade people that
the theory of evolution and the evidence that it is derived from is
religious?
Elmer Bataitis
> "Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message.
> > On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> > > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> > > sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> > > in genetics and other areas.
> > Haha! That's funny!
> It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed data
> avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat of
> any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
Gee, so all these scientists for the past 200 years have been lying? Why
do you think this?
> BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY EVOLUTION
> as the mechanism for descent with change.
> Survival of the fittest: a tautology
Not really a tautology but depends critically on what one means by
"fittest".
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
> species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
> time?
Is God omnipotent or not? How much "work" would He be saving Himself??
> >In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
> >science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
> >happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
> >and actually map black holes.
> >Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
> >today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not.
> Nonsense. Creation can EASILY acount for the various species. The
> varieties within each species would be the only "evolution," depending
> on environmental and other factors.
Unfortunately, speciation has been observed.
> For a LONG time, the "scientists" believed that there was some
> evolution at work in London and the surrounding area where the dark
> moths and butterflys were found only in one area and the lightly
> colored moths and butterflys were found only in another area.
> Then someone with some SENSE put together that the birds could more
> easily see the moths and butterflys that didn't blend into their
> environment. DUH!
Yup. Get eaten and it's difficult to pass on your genes.
> One scientist a few years ago wrote back to his bosses that he'd found
> the duckbilled platypus. Other "scientists" including his bosses
> scoffed. "It's not POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist. Stop
> drinking so much, stay off the local dope, and come home!"
> When he came home WITH the duckbilled platypus he'd found, the
> "scientists" who'd laughed stopped laughing.
Oh so "scientists" of 1700's were not as good as ones today?
> There will NEVER be any "evidence" found for creation so long as
> "scientists" don't look for.it. Imagine the difficulty of finding the
> needle in the haystack if you aren't searching for it.
Creationism; "finding the needle in the haystack". You'd think
scientists of the 1500- 1600 and 1700's were all athiests. They weren't.
> In fact, if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a
> rate of evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding
> anything that we observe today.
> Your point? YOU as other pseudo-scientists ASSUME that life is
> "evolving" or growing at the same rate now as it always did.
There are biological measures that can be checked.
> Not
> necessarily so. And that comes from a nuclear physicist friend of mine
> who worked on the Manhattan Project.
And nuclear physiciusts are qualified to speak on molecular biology because...?
> I'm assuming you know what the
> Manhattan Project was. In fact, one of the last times I saw him, he
> was working on a NEW "Fat Man".
??? Is this guy dead ???
The Manhatten project ended in 1946/7 or 60 some odd years ago. If he
started working on it in 1942 as a post grad he was at least 24 years
old. Born 1918 or so. Now about 85 or better.
Elmer Bataitis
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 11:10:22 -0500, "Helps" <wcl...@charter.net>
> >> > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> >> > sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> >> > in genetics and other areas.
> >> Haha! That's funny!
> >It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed data
> >avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat of
> >any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
> >BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY EVOLUTION
> >as the mechanism for descent with change.
> >Survival of the fittest: a tautology
> And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
It obviously didn't.
> Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
> Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
It obviously didn't.
> Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
> Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
> Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
> I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> culture locally.
> By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us.
Whose definition? Maybe you should reread the thread.
> Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> of 100, she can contribute.
> Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
> seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> it gained CRITICAL praise.
> Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> an unproven one at that..
What do animal breeders do? Not a theory at all. Reality. The "fittest"
in this case is what the breeders want. In nature, it's what nature wants.
Elmer Bataitis
> I'm not a christian, however what I do know is that evolution
> is a fraude. The facts of this earth tell a very different story.
Gee really? How many hours of geological studies have you had?
bardi
"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3EB1EB27...@frontiernet.net...
> J M wrote:
>
> > It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
> > species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
> > time?
>
> Is God omnipotent or not? How much "work" would He be saving Himself??
>
I sincerely doubt if that came into play. However, if one believes in a God
who promotes Free Will, than evolution makes a great deal of sense. Which
might be why Charles Darwin stated that his theory made him feel closer to
God.
>
> Oh so "scientists" of 1700's were not as good as ones today?
>
Define good. Obviously the scientists of the 1700s did not have the research
of..well,the scientists of the 1700s to build on. Mankind's physical
knowledge has increased dramatically since,and in part due to, that time.
Elmer Bataitis
> > Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
> > makes it a religion.
> > No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not make
> > it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
> > religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
> > it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
> > made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only time faith becomes a
> > religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
> World Book dictionary: 'a particular system of religious belief and worship'
> The deity would be 'evolution'
> Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but evolution
> I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
Evolution is the heritable genetic change in a reproducing population
over time. This is a *FACT*. There is a theory of evolution which
explains the fact of evolution by noting genetic variations, mutation,
genetic drift, natural and sexual selection and luck.
JISTASKKIN
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BAD74B65.4104CF%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
> in article Rbksa.6444$dP1....@newsc.telia.net, Roadrunner at
> peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:52 PM:
>
> >
> > "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
> > news:BAD744A6.4104C7%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
> >> in article kGjsa.6443$dP1....@newsc.telia.net, Roadrunner at
> >> peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:17 PM:> >>> news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
Raymond has issues with whomever doesn't agree with him. Show Raymond how
his logic is wrong, how what the Bible says disagrees with him and he will
go into fits.
Steven J.
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 10:10:28 -0400, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
>
> >Cloud McCloud wrote:
> >> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> >> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
> >> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
> >>
> >>>Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> >>>sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> >>>in genetics and other areas.
> >>
> >>
> >> Haha! That's funny!
> >>
> >
> >diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
> >closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
> >more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
> >of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
> >transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
> >between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
> >certain diseases much easier.
> >
>
> It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
> species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
> time?
>
Some have to do, as Dave Oldbridge points out, with why identical or
very similar nonfunctional DNA and morphological structures are used
in different species. But some have to do with why the Creator
apparently did not simply reuse the same building blocks for similar
or identical purposes.
There is an enzyme, used by virtually all known species, called
cytochrome-c. It's function does not vary from one species to
another, but oddly, its structure does. The human version is slightly
different from the baboon version, a bit more different from cow or
horse versions, and progressively more different from the various
reptile, amphibian, and fish versions, etc. Human cytochrome-c is
identical to chimpanzee cytochrome-c (as most of our proteins and
enzymes seem to have identical homologues in chimps), but the gene
that codes for this enzyme is different in one base pair between the
two species. This does not sound like what one would expect from
common design.
On the morphological level, there are striking examples. Both
cephalopods (octopuses and squids) and vertebrates use "box-camera"
type eyes. But they are not identical in fine detail. The most
striking difference is that in vertebrates, the nerves from the
retinal receptors exit from the front of the retina, requiring a
"blind spot" where they exit the eye as the optic nerve. In
cephalopods, the nerves exit from the rear of the retina, requiring no
blind spot. It looks as if Whoever or whatever designed eyes did
indeed start from scratch when designing vertebrate eyes, rather than
simply reusing the cephalopod design. The same, of course, applies to
pterosaur wings and bat wings, or the panda's thumb (a modified wrist
bone) and the primate thumb (a modified finger).
>
> >In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
> >science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
> >happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
> >and actually map black holes.
> >
> >Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
> >today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not.
>
> Nonsense. Creation can EASILY acount for the various species. The
> varieties within each species would be the only "evolution," depending
> on environmental and other factors.
>
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "species." Horses
and donkeys, for example, are as much separate species (albeit with a
more recent common ancestor) as horses and bluebirds. For that
matter, the development of new local varieties within a single species
would itself be (micro)evolution. Certainly the development of
tigers, ocelots, and house cats from a single ur-felid would be
evolution -- branching descent from a common ancestor. Most
biologists would call the latter "macroevolution," since they use that
term to describe the evolution of a new species, rather than limit it
to a new "kind" (a term with no clear definition).
You seem to be defining "evolution" to mean only change from one
"kind" to another. Biologists define it as change in the mix of
traits in a population over time, whether that means peppered moths
changing from mostly grey to mostly black, and back again, or horses
and rhinoceroses arising from a common ancestor (the original
population splits -- and splits again and again -- and each
subpopulation changes over time until something like _Hyracotherium_
gives rise to all the different modern perissodactyl species), or
humans and dandelions evolving from an even older common ancestor.
>
> For a LONG time, the "scientists" believed that there was some
> evolution at work in London and the surrounding area where the dark
> moths and butterflys were found only in one area and the lightly
> colored moths and butterflys were found only in another area.
>
> Then someone with some SENSE put together that the birds could more
> easily see the moths and butterflys that didn't blend into their
> environment. DUH!
>
That *is* evolution. Depending on the environment, one variant lives
to produce more offspring (so its genes become more common), and the
other often dies off before reproducing (so its genes become less
common).
>
> One scientist a few years ago wrote back to his bosses that he'd found
> the duckbilled platypus. Other "scientists" including his bosses
> scoffed. "It's not POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist. Stop
> drinking so much, stay off the local dope, and come home!"
>
> When he came home WITH the duckbilled platypus he'd found, the
> "scientists" who'd laughed stopped laughing.
>
> There will NEVER be any "evidence" found for creation so long as
> "scientists" don't look for.it. Imagine the difficulty of finding the
> needle in the haystack if you aren't searching for it.
>
In what respect is the platypus -- a survival from the time when all
mammals wer egg-laying -- support for creationism?
>
> In fact, if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a
> rate of evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding
> anything that we observe today.
>
> Your point? YOU as other pseudo-scientists ASSUME that life is
> "evolving" or growing at the same rate now as it always did. Not
> necessarily so. And that comes from a nuclear physicist friend of mine
> who worked on the Manhattan Project. I'm assuming you know what the
> Manhattan Project was. In fact, one of the last times I saw him, he
> was working on a NEW "Fat Man".
>
If you assume that a few thousand "kinds" aboard the Ark in ca. 2500
BC gave rise to all the species we see today, you'd expect to see, in
ancient Egyptian wall paintings, ancient animals rather more different
from today's than is in fact the case.
>
> >The numbers just don't work otherwise. Of course, the
> >desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
> >ignore the numbers!
>
> Ditto the evolutionists who will go to practially ANY lengths to prove
> God/The Creator doesn't exist.
>
Given that many evolutionist do believe that God exists, this seems an
unlikely motive for them to have.
>
> You also don't account for how many scientists are Creationists, such
> as my nuclear physicist friend as mentioned above. And you forget, in
> your ranting against creationism that at least 3 of the shuttle
> astronauts who recently died in the latest shuttle disaster were
> Creationist Christians.
>
Far, far fewer scientists are creationists than accept the theory of
evolution.
>
> >Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
> >cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
>
> Ditto. There has been EXHAUSTIVE study of creation/science. You
> believe what you choose to believe, we do as well. But your mistake is
> to believe erroneously that there is NO proof whatever for creation;
> that simply isn't so. We continue to prove creation, and the
> pseudo-scientist evolutionists go back to the drawing board to "prove"
> once again that creation isn't true. This is merely an attack on God,
> not on science.
>
> Moon dust is a proof of a very young universe; a can of tuna fish can
> be used to disprove evolution and prove creation. And there is valid
> evidence that, not only did man live concurrently with the dinosaurs
> (that means at the same time as), but some dinosaurs--the smaller
> ones, even live today.
>
The moon dust argument was discredited long ago; if you go to Answers
in Genesis <http://www.answersingenesis.org>, you will find it among
their "arguments creationists should not use. It was based on early
and faulty estimates of the infall of dust on the moon; later
measurements of the rate made the amount of dust on the surface
consistent with a four billion-year-old moon. The only small
dinosaurs alive today are birds.
If you'd like to explain how a can of tuna fish confirms the
predictions of creationism (if you'd like to detail some of the
predictions of creationism -- most creationists insist that no
possible evidence could show creationism was false, which implies that
it makes no predictions), we'd love to see it.
>
> Some lizards are ANCIENT lifeforms. Scientists cannot date the age of
> sharks, other than they've been around "pre-historically", and
> crocodiles and alligators also qualify.
>
Some orders, families, even genera have endured for scores of millions
of years with little morphological change. The species are generally
of much more recent vintage; modern sharks and lizards are not the
same species as their Mesozoic counterparts.
>
> Another life form the "scientists" ignore is the teradactyls that are
> alive and well in the jungles of South America. Ignoring those facts
> that poke the largest holes in your theories is NOT science.
>
I've wasted all this time responding to a troll, right? You don't
really believe that there are pterodactyls soaring over the Amazon
(entirely unnoticed by _National Geographic_, strangely)? Of course,
if there were, that would only prove that, like crocodilians, the
pterosaur order survived the K-T boundary extinction. It would not
disprove evolution, any more than alligators or horseshoe crabs do.
>
> >So yes, it is funny in a sad sort of way. I understand because I was a
> >fundamentalist and believed implicitly their literature. I even argued
> >with my professors about it.
>
> What changed your mind? It wasn't science!
>
> John W
-- Steven J.
Matt Silberstein
<jus...@nobody.com>:
>On Thu, 01 May 2003 10:10:28 -0400, "Raymond E. Griffith"
><tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:
>
>>Cloud McCloud wrote:
>>> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>>> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
>>> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
>>>>sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
>>>>in genetics and other areas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Haha! That's funny!
>>>
>>
>>It is rather ironic, isn't it? But it is a fact. In researching human
>>diseases, much profitable work has centered on primates because of their
>>closeness to the human genome. In other animals, scientists have to be
>>more careful. A laboratory rat is similar to humans genetically in lots
>>of ways, but the differences tend to make the observations less
>>transferrable. But knowing the relationships and the relative distances
>>between the relationships has made identifications of the causes of
>>certain diseases much easier.
>>
>
>It would make PERFECT sense that the creator would make similar
>species of the same building blocks. Why start "from scratch" each
>time?
So humans and chimps are similar, right? Now why did the creator
put in the same changes in the non-coding areas of the genome?
Why do humans and chimps have the same change that prevents us
from making our own vitamin C? Why even bother to put in that
gene?
>
>>In most of the other sciences, evolution as applied to that branch of
>>science helps provide the continuity needed to understand what is
>>happening. Understanding the evolution of stars allowed us to predict
>>and actually map black holes.
>>
>>Evolution is the only answer for the extreme biological diversity of
>>today's world, whether you believe in the Flood of Noah or not.
>
>Nonsense. Creation can EASILY acount for the various species. The
>varieties within each species would be the only "evolution," depending
>on environmental and other factors.
Creation, sufficiently undefined, can account for anything. And,
therefore, accounts for nothing. To the extent that creationism
is science it has been refuted. To the extent that it has not
been refuted, it is not science.
>For a LONG time, the "scientists" believed that there was some
>evolution at work in London and the surrounding area where the dark
>moths and butterflys were found only in one area and the lightly
>colored moths and butterflys were found only in another area.
>
>Then someone with some SENSE put together that the birds could more
>easily see the moths and butterflys that didn't blend into their
>environment. DUH!
Yep, it is called natural selection. It is one of the major
factors identified by Darwin.
>One scientist a few years ago wrote back to his bosses that he'd found
>the duckbilled platypus. Other "scientists" including his bosses
>scoffed. "It's not POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist. Stop
>drinking so much, stay off the local dope, and come home!"
>
>When he came home WITH the duckbilled platypus he'd found, the
>"scientists" who'd laughed stopped laughing.
Do you have a point to this?
>There will NEVER be any "evidence" found for creation so long as
>"scientists" don't look for.it. Imagine the difficulty of finding the
>needle in the haystack if you aren't searching for it.
Funny, but the creationist don't seem to look for evidence for
creation either. They have money to print books attacking
evolution, but nothing for experiments to support creationism.
Evolution is the unifying principle of all modern biology.
Scientists working on curing diseases, from Malaria to TB to AIDS
to SARS, all use evolution as part of their work. They take it
into account when examining the pathogen, when devising
treatments, everywhere. If evolution is wrong and creationism is
right then creationists can save millions of lives. So why isn't
there a single experiment by these creationists set up to help
cure a disease?
> In fact, if you believe in the Flood of Noah, you must ascede to a
>rate of evolution in the last few thousand years vastly exceeding
>anything that we observe today.
>
>Your point? YOU as other pseudo-scientists ASSUME that life is
>"evolving" or growing at the same rate now as it always did.
No, they *examine* the evidence. That life evolves is *observed*.
The rate of evolution is determined from the evidence. Unlike
creationists they don't assume their conclusion.
>Not
>necessarily so. And that comes from a nuclear physicist friend of mine
>who worked on the Manhattan Project. I'm assuming you know what the
>Manhattan Project was. In fact, one of the last times I saw him, he
>was working on a NEW "Fat Man".
???? How old are you? Are you trolling?
>The numbers just don't work otherwise. Of course, the
>>desire to deny evolution makes a lot of creationists simply fudge or
>>ignore the numbers!
>
>Ditto the evolutionists who will go to practially ANY lengths to prove
>God/The Creator doesn't exist.
Funny, I know several working biologists who accept evolution and
believe in God. Some are even Christians. And I have never read a
single scientific paper that said a thing about God. You are
saying things that simply are not so. As you repeat them you come
close to bearing false witness.
>You also don't account for how many scientists are Creationists, such
>as my nuclear physicist friend as mentioned above. And you forget, in
>your ranting against creationism that at least 3 of the shuttle
>astronauts who recently died in the latest shuttle disaster were
>Creationist Christians.
Please support this with the references. I suspect you are making
it up, but I don't know.
>Again, their mindset has been trained so that they
>>cannot even conceive of the difficulties of their position.
>
>Ditto. There has been EXHAUSTIVE study of creation/science.
And it was rejected well over 100 years ago.
>You
>believe what you choose to believe, we do as well. But your mistake is
>to believe erroneously that there is NO proof whatever for creation;
>that simply isn't so.
Then please supply evidence *for* creation. Not supposed evidence
against evolution. You said there was evidence for creation,
provide references to that *evidence*.
>We continue to prove creation, and the
>pseudo-scientist evolutionists go back to the drawing board to "prove"
>once again that creation isn't true. This is merely an attack on God,
>not on science.
>
>Moon dust is a proof of a very young universe;
No, it is not. You were lied to.
>a can of tuna fish can
>be used to disprove evolution and prove creation.
Please do so.
>And there is valid
>evidence that, not only did man live concurrently with the dinosaurs
>(that means at the same time as), but some dinosaurs--the smaller
>ones, even live today.
They call them birds.
>Some lizards are ANCIENT lifeforms. Scientists cannot date the age of
>sharks, other than they've been around "pre-historically", and
>crocodiles and alligators also qualify.
All life today stems from life 65 million years ago. Some have
not changed all that much externally. But a lot of that has to do
with our human-centric viewpoint. For most people all lizards
look alike.
>Another life form the "scientists" ignore is the teradactyls that are
>alive and well in the jungles of South America. Ignoring those facts
>that poke the largest holes in your theories is NOT science.
You have to be trolling.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Dave Oldridge
news:bBisa.6438$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
> Is that so? I'm not a christian, however what I do know is that
> evolution is a fraude. The facts of this earth tell a very different
> story.
I think you're a fraud. Your apologetic is straight creationist boiler-
plate. That stuff is invented by fundamentalists (I won't dignify them
with the name Christian) turned con artist.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Dave Oldridge
news:kGjsa.6443$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
> "David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> Pastor Dave barfed:
>> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
>> makes it a religion.
>
>> No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not
>> make it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the
>> definiton of religion that says believing in anything on "faith"
>> alone as you call it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion.
>> It is a defintion made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only
>> time faith becomes a religion is when it is combined with belief in a
>> deity, stupid.
>
> World Book dictionary: 'a particular system of religious belief and
> worship' The deity would be 'evolution'
>
> Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
> evolution I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
So what IS your religious perspective? Are you a member of the Church of
Wilful Ignorance or something? Clearly the framers of the US constitution
have referred to "religion" as the kind of religion that establishes
itself in conjunction with state authority. In other words, it was
originally aimed at denominational Christianity, but can easily be
extended to mean other organized or semi-organized systems of worship and
ethics. However it was NOT EVER intended that it should be applied to any
branch of natural science, which is what you are trying to do. You are a
fraud. The only thing religious about evolution is that it is based on
science that exposes some of the false prophets of false religions where
they have made scientifically testable claims and been found false.
Dave Oldridge
news:Onksa.6446$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>>
>> More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public
>> library computer?
>>
>> www.skeptical-christian.net
>>
>>
>
> I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why
> should he.
> http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
>
> Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
So you're a scientologist. I doubt even Hubbard would have been as prone
to sophistry as you seem to be, though. And the only thing HE did well
was write some passable sci-fi. And it's only passable, not great.
But I doubt Hubbard would follow Hovind and repeat his lies. Hubbard was
too smart for THAT!!!
Dave Oldridge
news:Rbksa.6444$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
> news:BAD744A6.4104C7%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
>> in article kGjsa.6443$dP1....@newsc.telia.net, Roadrunner at
>> peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:17 PM:
>>
>> > "David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Pastor Dave barfed:
>> >> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
>> >> makes it a religion.
>> >
>> >> No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not
>> >> make it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the
>> >> definiton of religion that says believing in anything on "faith"
>> >> alone as you call it makes it a religion. There is no such
>> >> defintion. It is a defintion made up out of thin air by
>> >> Creationists. The only time faith becomes a religion is when it is
>> >> combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
>> >
>> > World Book dictionary: 'a particular system of religious belief and
> worship'
>> > The deity would be 'evolution'
>> >
>> > Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
> evolution
>> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
>> >
>>
>> Well then, what are you? And if you don't believe in evolution, why
>> do you support the "Christian" view of creation as espoused by
>> Christian fundamentalists? After all, you put up Hovind's web site.
>>
>> It does not seem reasonable for you to say you are not a Christian
>> but support the Christian fundamentalist version of creationism. So,
>> what are
> you?
>
> Ever heard of common sense? You look at the physical evidence on this
> planet and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely
> based on logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or
> the creationism idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which
> you then can categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It
> is also of no basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's
> much more interesting to study WHY people believe the things they do.
In order to actually do that, you have to know WHAT things they believe.
Attacking straw men is utterly pointless. But it IS a common frailty and
one that latter-day creationists exploit a lot. Maybe this type of
sophistry is also taught in their academies of illogic?
Dave Oldridge
news:pHksa.6447$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>> > Ever heard of common sense? You look at the physical evidence on
>> > this
> planet
>> > and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely based
>> > on logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or the
> creationism
>> > idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which you then can
>> > categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It is also
>> > of no basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's much
>> > more
> interesting
>> > to study WHY people believe the things they do.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I have heard of common sense. I use it, too. And each one of
>> Hovind's physical reasons for creationism on the web page you posted
>> is flawed or outdated. It contains the same old *LIES* that has
>> marked the creationist movement and its leaders from the 1960s. Many
>> of the arguments on this
> page
>> are arguments abandoned by ICR, an acknowledged leader in the
>> Creationist movement.
>
> Common sense did not abandon them...
>
>>
>> But sorry, I think that you probably are a Christian, posing as a
>> non-Christian in order to make a point. Would that be a sheep in
>> wolves' clothing? As for putting you in a box, why, I'll feel as free
>> to put you
> in
>> a box as you feel free to put me into one.
>
> I have not accepted Christ as my saviour as Christians do. I do not
> pray and I do not visit any church for that purpose. Putting in a box,
> creates a fixed condition. Objectivity has the tendency to vanish if
> we do so. I did not put you in any box, you say I did, this is not the
> same.
>
>>
>> However, I invite you to use your stunning intellect to discuss the
>> evidences for creation. Please prepare your scientific evidences, and
>> be ready to discuss the implications they present. Be ready also to
>> discuss issues such as the dates your evidences are from, and what
>> the most recent research in the matter is.
>
> Again, is that of any importance? Why are you so eager to defend your
> view? I simply urge people not to be fixated about anything. You are
> assuming I am Christian when I am not. As evolutionist assume this
> universe is billions of years of old when this is not provable.
>
>>
>> By the way, sir. How about a bit of personal information? Age,
>> education? Anything that would mark you as a person of expertise in a
>> certain area? Even the creationist leaders claim their doctorates,
>> you know. So a bit of knowledge about whom I am dealing with would be
>> welcome.
>
> I put out Kent Hovind's seminar on my homepage, there is some data
> about me too there. Age? Who cares, again putting in some box.
> Education? Common sense is not based on knowledge, it is simply an
> ability to deduct. Children are often much smarter then grown-ups even
> with their may be limited factual knowledge.
Kent Hovind first came to my attention when someone cited his fraudulent
$250K challenge to "prove" evolution where he defines the "proof" as
proving that God did not create the universe. This is fraudulent for a
number of reasons. First, due to Hovind's ongoing problems with the US
Federal government, he has had to declare assets in public court cases and
he either does not HAVE the $250K or he has been lying under oath about
not having it. Second, and perhaps more important, the "proof" that he
requires is not evidence for evolution but evidence for some sort of
atheistic cosmogenesis that, even if it were true would not be evidence
for evolution (or against it). And HE gets to decide who the judges will
be AND what will be presented to them. That's not a challenge, it's a
piece of propaganda. He can't lose and he knows he can't lose.
But, if he would submit himself to a reasonable jury on the question "do
humans and chimpanzees share a common genetic ancestor?" With the same
rules for discovery and points of law that govern a civil suit, he'd
likely lose. The evidence for that was strong back when he first
published his "challenge." It has gotten a lot stronger and continues to
do so as we sequence the chimp genome and match it with our own.
Some of the more interesting smoking guns are the parts where the chimp
and human genomes are identical but differ from those of other mammals and
even of other primates. Some of that is important with respect to the
differences between the chimp/human branch and the gorillas and orangs,
but some of it is just scratches on the negative--viral insertions
inherited from a common ancestor.
Another problem I have with Kent Hovind is that he lies a lot. I watched
him on my TV tell us about what's wrong with 14C dating. The fact is all
the man did was betray his ignorance of 14C dating, how and why it's done
the way it is and what it can be used for and not used for. In other
words, far from being an expert, as he claims, he is totally ignorant of
the subject.
And then there's his PhD. Ask him where to get a copy of his thesis
sometime. The last person I know of who got a straight answer at all was
told that it isn't finished yet. One immediately wants to know what kind
of university issues degrees on the basis of unfinished work!!!
And then, after regaling me with lies about 14C dating, Hovind told me
with a straight face that the government was watching him through his TV!
It's amazing! This man is onto the best con game available in the USA.
Nobody will EVER bust him for lying about science in the name of religion
(though he needs to watch the civil torts). Yet he's too stupid to pay
his taxes!
I'm sorry, son, you need a better class of hero! I could offer you a
couple or three of mine. There's Polkinghorne, of course. Then there's
Gandhi, and a whole host of saints like Francis of Assisi. Even Aquinas
and Augustine have their places in the history of western thought. But
Hovind will never be more than a joke.
Dave Oldridge
news:a2msa.53939$8r5.4...@news1.telusplanet.net:
Jist has issues with truth. Show him anything that disagrees with his pet
heresy and it automatically is deemed to disagree with "what the Bible
says" according to "St. Jist." Of course the fact that "St. Jist" can't
even read Usenet posts in English and get them right uniquely qualifies
him to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek metaphors.
Dave Oldridge
news:Mhksa.6445$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> "Andromeda" <ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in message
> news:b8si9p$ct30s$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
>>
>> > Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian, but
>> evolution
>> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
>>
>> You say you're not a Christian... you sound like one.
>
> So, you are saying that I sound like a Christian for reason of me
> rejecting the evolution theory?
> What's wrong with common sense?
Actually you don't sound like a Christian, you sound like a heretic.
>> What is *godlike* about the big bang?
>> Were the first one-celled organisms on earth (4bya), "god's children"
>> in
> the
>> eyes of evolutionists?
>> What evolutionist have you lately seen, sacrificing animals or babies
>> to un-named god or gods. For this cause, it is not a religion, no
>> more than say, the multiplication tables or chemistry or physics, or
>> calculus.
> There's
>> as much *religion* found in evolution to evolutionists, as any of us
>> see god(s) out of the thin air...
>
> That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
> system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
> ours. Evolution is not provable, That's all.
In science, nothing is "provable" so you are essentially claiming that
science is a religion. But that's NOT what the framers of the US
constitution meant by "religion."
Science does not operate by "proving" theorems as is done in mathematics.
Instead, it operates by DISPROVING theories that do not explain the data,
while retaining those that continue to have explanatory value.
>> Meanwhile, please explain what you're referring to, when you've
>> stated evolution is not scientific? What's unscientific about it...?
>> the
> one-celled
>> organisms four billion years ago, or the dinosaurs 65 million years
>> ago... or was it man, a mere 4 million years ago. Sounds like
>> evolution to me.
> Scientific is provable to be true, without reasonable doubt. All
> dating methods are based on presumptions ans unchanged conditions. it
> at least has been proven dat they were not always the same and
> therefore the datings are quite fallible.
1. Radiometric dating methods are based on the observation that the
forces that control the statistical probability of decay have not changed
(to at least 17 figures) over the past 4 billion years, a past which we
can observe directly with telescopes.
2. Radiometric dating methods depend also, of course, on some sort of
geochemical event resetting the particular radiometric "clock." It is the
time since resetting that the methods attempt to estimate.
3. Hovind correctly states that the quantity of 14C in the atmosphere
varies over time. What he does not tell you is that scientists know this
and have spent a great deal of time and effort measuring it in places like
ice cores, tree rings and many other sources of information about it so
that the 14C column is now very well calibrated.
4. Hovind practically totally ignores the physics of isochron dates. I
would strongly suggest you study these physics before making an ass of
yourself about them.
(But then maybe making an ass of yourself is your goal in life).
Dave Oldridge
@newsc.telia.net:
>> > That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely
a
>> > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
> ours.
>> > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>>
>> Not provable? Neither is religion.
>> Since you define evolution as *religion*.
>> Please define what science is then.
>> Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
>
> It's the way these are interpreted, what makes up the religion. Never
the
> fossiles themselves.
That's nice. But if you want to critique an interpretation of a fossil
you need to do so with reference to the fossil itself, not just waving
your hands.
>> were not always the same and therefore the datings are
>> > quite fallible.
>> So is prayer sometimes.
>
> I don't pray!
I'm sure you probably can't.
Dave Oldridge
news:Walsa.6454$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:n6n3bvcjdi2kq4vps...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se>
>> wrote in <8Oksa.6449$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
>>
>> >> > That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and
>> >> > solely
> a
>> >> > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe
>> >> > of
>> >ours.
>> >> > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>> >>
>> >> Not provable? Neither is religion.
>> >> Since you define evolution as *religion*.
>> >> Please define what science is then.
>> >> Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
>> >
>> >It's the way these are interpreted, what makes up the religion.
>> >Never the fossiles themselves.
>>
>> Please provide a shred of evidence to support your wild assertions.
>>
>> >> were not always the same and therefore the datings are
>> >> > quite fallible.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So is prayer sometimes.
>> >
>> >I don't pray!
>>
>> I guess you just live under a bridge.
>>
>
> Why the sarcasm??
It's his subtle way of calling you a troll. A troll in Usenet parlance is
someone who posts something totally out to lunch for the purpose of
trolling for replies.
(It's a play on words, you see).
Dave Oldridge
news:wnlsa.6456$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> "David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:gqn3bv0lhoao1ij48...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se>
>> wrote in <c9lsa.6453$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
>>
>> >
>> >"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3sm3bvs1ooeknhbph...@4ax.com...
>> >> In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se>
>> >> wrote in <Mhksa.6445$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Andromeda" <ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:b8si9p$ct30s$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Now, who is the stupid? And by the way I am not a Christian,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> evolution
>> >> >> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You say you're not a Christian... you sound like one.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, you are saying that I sound like a Christian for reason of me
>> >rejecting
>> >> >the evolution theory?
>> >>
>> >> Some sort of religiously biased writer.
>> >>
>> >> >What's wrong with common sense?
>> >>
>> >> Common sense, unaffected by knowledge is a special kind of
>> >> foolishness. Common sense tells us that nuclear weapons don't
>> >> exist, that the sun goes around the earth, that the sun is not a
>> >> fusion reaction. Common sense is limited and appealing to it is a
>> >> limitation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> What is *godlike* about the big bang?
>> >> >> Were the first one-celled organisms on earth (4bya), "god's
> children"
>> >in
>> >> >the
>> >> >> eyes of evolutionists?
>> >> >> What evolutionist have you lately seen, sacrificing animals or
> babies
>> >to
>> >> >> un-named god or gods. For this cause, it is not a religion, no
>> >> >> more
>> >than
>> >> >> say, the multiplication tables or chemistry or physics, or
>> >> >> calculus.
>> >> >There's
>> >> >> as much *religion* found in evolution to evolutionists, as any
>> >> >> of us
>> >see
>> >> >> god(s) out of the thin air...
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and
>> >> >solely a system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical
>> >> >universe of
> ours.
>> >> >Evolution is not provable, That's all.
>> >>
>> >> The theory of evolution is the model that best fits all of the
>> >> evidence about the history of life on earth. As with all
>> >> scientific theories, that means that it is proven in a legal or
>> >> testing sense, but not in a formal or logical sense.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Meanwhile, please explain what you're referring to, when you've
> stated
>> >> >> evolution is not scientific? What's unscientific about it...?
>> >> >> the
>> >> >one-celled
>> >> >> organisms four billion years ago, or the dinosaurs 65 million
>> >> >> years
>> >ago...
>> >> >> or was it man, a mere 4 million years ago. Sounds like
>> >> >> evolution to
> me.
>> >> >
>> >> >Scientific is provable to be true, without reasonable doubt.
>> >>
>> >> What?
>> >>
>> >> >All dating methods are based on presumptions ans unchanged
>> >> >conditions.
>> >>
>> >> That is not a presumption, but an observation about the behavior
>> >> of the universe. If you have contrary evidence, provide it, your
>> >> mindless speculation is not a valid objection.
>> >>
>> >> > it at least has
>> >> >been proven dat they were not always the same and therefore the
> datings
>> >are
>> >> >quite fallible.
>> >>
>> >> How fallible? What are the the error bars?
>> >
>> >Get educated first. You are only opposing but not adding anything
>> >to it. You will find some data here:
>> >http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.ht
>> >ml
>>
>> I am educated about Slimeball Hovind. He is not a doctor, his PhD is
>> a fraud. He knows nothing about science and teaches nonsense in place
>> of it. He has a fairly long rap sheet.
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that Hovind's nonsense is educational was
>> miseducated as a child.
>>
>> >Why is it always so that those who support get so sarcastic about
>> >things, are they afraid of something. What do they want to prove?
>> >
>> >Common sense is logical deduction, no more, no less......
>>
>> As the saying goes Garbage In Garbage Out. That's why common sense
>> applied to ignorance is worthless.
>
> Again sarcasm, and empty words. Kent's PhD is basically of nó
> importance, I've seen evolutionist's debating with him and getting
> overwhelmed, not knowing what to say anymore. Much more convincing.
It is very frustrating to debate professional creationists. In fact
that's why I won't do it. Not in the kind of time-limited public debate
forum that they favour. And the reason is dead simple. It takes about
half an hour to carefully build the groundwork to refute a lie that it
takes Hovind half a minute or less to tell. Such "debates" are simply
places for Hovind to sell his videos and gain followers who are impressed
with his sophistry.
When creationism has been subjected to the scrutiny of the courts in the
US, it has invariably lost. And its track record in peer reviewed science
journals is terrible. To put it bluntly they mostly don't submit their
garbage for peer review and then complain that they couldn't get it
published!
> I wrote a piece about my findings about this controvery, you may want
> or may not want to look at it. I'm going in for the night (or rather
> morning)
>
> http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
Nothing here about why you worship a "hero" with a phony PhD.
Seriously, my doctorate from UBS in Advanced Pedantics is just as good as
his so-called degree.
Roy
J M wrote:
> And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
It was. But since he didn't become deaf until he was in his 40s,
it didn't affect his early career.
> Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
> Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
Why? Being blind isn't fatal. Nor does it affect reproduction. In the
ancient world
it might have affected survival chances, but not today.
> Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
> Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
>
> Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
>
> I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> culture locally.
>
> By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us. Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> of 100, she can contribute.
If she has an IQ of 100, she doesn't have a below average IQ.
>
> Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
> seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> it gained CRITICAL praise.
>
> Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> an unproven one at that..
Since technically you can't prove scientific theories, but only disprove
them, your statement is effectively tautological...
--
Roy
John Baker
>
> Again sarcasm, and empty words. Kent's PhD is basically of nó importance,
> I've seen evolutionist's debating with him and getting overwhelmed, not
> knowing what to say anymore. Much more convincing.
Hovind is a fraud who couldn't hold his own against a reasonably intelligent
12 year old in an honest scientific debate. Note the operative term,
'honest.' It's one Hovind is totally unfamiliar with. He's never once agreed
to debate when he can't pick the venue and make the rules. Sure
"evolutionists" are struck speechless. We simply can't believe Hovind's
utter stupidity, or more to the point, we can't believe anyone would take
him seriously. That some people apparently do leaves us at a loss for words.
The man is a liar and a charlatan whose abysmal scientific ignorance should
be apparent to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the subject.
The only thing Hovind really excels at is selling a lie to the gullible,
scientifically illiterate fundies who actually believe he knows what he's
talking about. The Kent Hovind Sure-Fire Method of "winning" debates
consists simply of telling so many lies during your turn at the podium that
it's impossible for your opponent to refute them in the time allotted.
John Baker
> >
> > >>
> > >> More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public
> library
> > >> computer?
> > >>
> > >> www.skeptical-christian.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why
should
> > >he.
> > >http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
> > >
> > >Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
> >
> > willing to use their own names, while the forces of ignorance hide
> > behind pseudonyms.
>
> Really? I give freely my homepage and other information about myself. Waht
> did you do?
The "Pot And Kettle Argument" cuts no ice here, RR. <G>
>
>
Andromeda
"Roy" <rthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EB25E11...@hotmail.com...
> > Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> > an unproven one at that..
>
> Since technically you can't prove scientific theories, but only disprove
> them, your statement is effectively tautological...
Survival of the fittest is indeed a fact of nature. We see it all around us
in the animal kingdom. Now humans are sometimes (mind you, sometimes) a
little different than the animal, but not much. They've got what's called
"intellect" and you can take the ugliest man, and give him talent, and a
charming personality, and sheez, he'll be surrounded by women. :)
Also, so goes for procreation and "survival of the fittest" - depends what a
species finds attractive. e.g., for peacocks its their plumage... clip the
eyes out of those feathers, and its going to be a lonely mating season for
the peacock... for the human animal, sometimes its their ability to make
music, to create art, to write, to sing, and sometimes, its how rippling
those muscles are, ROTFL, sometimes, the ability to make money is the key to
attracting a mate. Depends what stirs the heart and soul, of a woman.
Tom
> > No, ahem, it does NOT. Just believing something on faith does not make
> > it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
> > religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
> > it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
> > made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only time faith becomes a
> > religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
>
worship'
> The deity would be 'evolution'
Tom: What are these religious systems. Statements such as this are the ones
creationists make when they have nothing of substance to offer, which is
most of the time.
>RR: Now, who is the stupid?
Tom: You still qualify.
>RR: And by the way I am not a Christian, but evolution
> I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
Tom: What do you find about evolution that isn't scientific RR?
>
Tom
> >> > >
> >> > > More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public
> >> library
> >> > > computer?
> >> > >
> >> > > www.skeptical-christian.net
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why
> >should
> >> > he.
> >> > http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
> >> >
> >> > Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
> >>
top.
> >>
> >
> >Did you?
> >http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/WHO_IS_THIS.html
>David: The Ignorant Mystic?
Tom: Now Dave, don't insult the guy. After all, he did have his picture
published on the internet and therefore must be quite famous.
Tom
> >
> > >>
> > >> More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public
> library
> > >> computer?
> > >>
> > >> www.skeptical-christian.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why
should
> > >he.
> > >http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
> > >
> > >Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
> >
> > willing to use their own names, while the forces of ignorance hide
> > behind pseudonyms.
>
Waht
> did you do?
> Again sarcasm and empty words to cover up ignorance
Tom: Ignorance is entering a newsgroup with nothing to say but talking
anyway. When you get a few specifics come back and talk to us.
Helps
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 11:10:22 -0500, "Helps" <wcl...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message
> >> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
> >> <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in
> >> news:BAD67BA9.4103FD%tiffirg...@ctc.net:
> >>
> >> > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> >> > sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> >> > in genetics and other areas.
> >>
> >> Haha! That's funny!
> >
> >avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat
of
> >any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
> >BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY
EVOLUTION
> >as the mechanism for descent with change.
> >Survival of the fittest: a tautology
> >
> classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
>
> Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
>
> Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
>
> Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
>
> I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> culture locally.
>
> By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us. Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> of 100, she can contribute.
>
> seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> it gained CRITICAL praise.
>
> an unproven one at that..
>
The "Survival of the fittest" as a slogan is seemingly obvious.
This what is meant by a tautology. If you didn't survive you couldn't
reproduce, so you must have been the fittest in the first place. The
problem is that reproductive skills are not necessarily survival skills.
Secondly, the fossil record, if looked at dispassionately, would never have
produced the conclusion that evolution is the SOLE cause of descent with
change. The record shows huge time slots with NO change and then rapid
major shifts. EXACTLY opposite to Darwin's hypothesis. Read "Darwin on
Trial"
Thirdly, the level of complexity is such that step-wise small changes would
kill the animal before you got all the pieces together. As an example the
"clotting mechanism" is actually a dual systme to clot and another system to
breakdown clots. Each is independent. With out all three in balance we
would bleed or clot to death in minutes. Imagine the poor animal who got
one part of it installed before the other two. Suruval of the 'fittest'
indeed. Read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box.'
Tom
>
> "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
> news:BAD744A6.4104C7%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
> > in article kGjsa.6443$dP1....@newsc.telia.net, Roadrunner at
> > peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:17 PM:
> >
> > > "David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
> > >> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
> > >> makes it a religion.
> > >
make
> > >> it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the definiton of
> > >> religion that says believing in anything on "faith" alone as you call
> > >> it makes it a religion. There is no such defintion. It is a defintion
> > >> made up out of thin air by Creationists. The only time faith becomes
a
> > >> religion is when it is combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
> > >
> worship'
> > > The deity would be 'evolution'
> > >
> evolution
> > > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
> > >
> >
you
> > support the "Christian" view of creation as espoused by Christian
> > fundamentalists? After all, you put up Hovind's web site.
> >
> > It does not seem reasonable for you to say you are not a Christian but
> > support the Christian fundamentalist version of creationism. So, what
are
> you?
>RR: Ever heard of common sense? You look at the physical evidence on this
>planet and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely based
on
> logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or the
creationism
> idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which you then can
> categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It is also of no
> basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's much more
interesting
> to study WHY people believe the things they do.
Tom: I see from your common sense statements that you know nothing of QM. I
also see that small things such as evidence do nothing for you. Typical
creationist.
Helps
>in this case is what the breeders want. In nature, it's what nature wants.
NON-SENSE!!!
Firstly, we are talking about speciation... NEW SPECIES, if fact new genera,
new families, new order, new phyla and new kingdoms.
Animal breeders fiddle with makeing changes within a species, small
potatoes.
Secondly, animal breeders are merely rearranging fixed material... its
called sexual reproduction.
At best they are taking the part of a truly discerning stud animal.
Thirdly "What Nature wants"? Who is this Nature you speak of? Personafying
the creation no more makes it a god than ignoring GOd makes him go away.
Please READ something before you get into this.
Darwin of trial by Smith
Darw2in's Black box by Behe
"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3EB1EC09...@frontiernet.net...
> J M wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 May 2003 11:10:22 -0500, "Helps" <wcl...@charter.net>
> > >"Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message
> > >> On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>
> > >> > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> > >> > sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> > >> > in genetics and other areas.
>
> > >> Haha! That's funny!
>
> > >It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed
data
> > >avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat
of
> > >any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
> > >BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY
EVOLUTION
> > >as the mechanism for descent with change.
> > >Survival of the fittest: a tautology
>
> > And survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the deaf
> > classical musician. Was it Beethoven?
>
> It obviously didn't.
>
> > Survival of the fittest would eliminate, help me, the blind musicians,
> > Ronny Milsap, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles.
>
> It obviously didn't.
>
> > Who on this earth would want to live in a world without Ronny Milsap,
> > Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles?
>
> > Not to mention the SEVERAL Idiot Savants whose gifts are music. I've
> > seen two blind idiot savants who are GIFTED concert pianists.
>
> > I am mentally ill myself; of that, I've made no secret. Yet I've
> > changed history already. And my writing CONTINUES to change the
> > culture locally.
>
> > By YOUR definition of "survival of the fittest" there would be no sick
> > or lame or otherwise "infirm" among us.
>
> Whose definition? Maybe you should reread the thread.
>
> > Yet even the Downs Syndrome
> > folk can contribute. I see them in stores, as clerks, I rode the bus
> > with one a few weks ago, a pretty young lady of 24 who had a boyfriend
> > and was on her way to her job. We carried on a VERY nice conversation.
> > She is no idiot. While her IQ may be below average, if she has an IQ
> > of 100, she can contribute.
>
> > Don't forget the Downs Syndrome young man who had his own TV series
> > seveveral years ago, for several years. Although it never caught on,
> > it gained CRITICAL praise.
>
> > Don't fool yourself; "survival of the fittest" is merely a theory, and
> > an unproven one at that..
>
> What do animal breeders do? Not a theory at all. Reality. The "fittest"
> in this case is what the breeders want. In nature, it's what nature wants.
Helps
What is must have been what was the "fittest" to survive.
As such it is a useless concept. A mere restating of one statement as
another: animals exist, all animals had ancestors, therefore the animals now
must had had the best ancestors in the past.
It says nothing other than the obvious and has no power to predict, which is
the utility of any theory.
Thus the Theory of evolution is not even a theory
"Andromeda" <ma...@skeptical-christian.net> wrote in message
news:b8tqnd$dlvc3$1...@ID-182287.news.dfncis.de...
Helps
Firstly, Darwin publish a little over 100 hundred years ago not 200.
Secondly, scientific unanimity has HARDLY been enjoyed by it and has been
increasing for 50 years, despite the overwhelming attempts to silence it.
Recently, a CA med school professor was sued because he refused to give a
recommendation (a routine procedure) to any med student who didn't BELIEVE
in the theory.
Thirdly, are you arguing from authority?
If so Read: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box, Ross's "The Genesis Question",
Smith's "Darwin on Trial"
Fourthly, you have made no attempt to define "fittest"
if you merely mean that those that survive must have been "fittest"
since they survived, you have made an excellent example of a tautology and
thus the theory is no theory at all as it has no power to predict and very
little to elucidate.
"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3EB1E6FE...@frontiernet.net...
> Helps wrote:
> > "Cloud McCloud" <cl...@cloud.com> wrote in message.
> > > On Thu 01 May 2003 07:22:18a, "Raymond E. Griffith"
>
> > > > Creationists cannot see how evolution has become the unifier of the
> > > > sciences, nor how evolutionary theory has driven the great advances
> > > > in genetics and other areas.
>
> > > Haha! That's funny!
>
> > It really is: this is a grand unifier which has none of its supposed
data
> > avaialble (ie fossil record as predicted by Darwin) and cuts the throat
of
> > any grad student that says that the emperor has no clothes.
>
> Gee, so all these scientists for the past 200 years have been lying? Why
> do you think this?
>
> > BTB, it is not evolution which is at question here really BUT ONLY
EVOLUTION
> > as the mechanism for descent with change.
> > Survival of the fittest: a tautology
>
> Not really a tautology but depends critically on what one means by
> "fittest".
David Jensen
<vb4uecn...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>What do animal breeders do? Not a theory at all. Reality. The "fittest"
>>in this case is what the breeders want. In nature, it's what nature wants.
>
>NON-SENSE!!!
>
>Firstly, we are talking about speciation... NEW SPECIES, if fact new genera,
>new families, new order, new phyla and new kingdoms.
Those occurred over the entire age of life on earth, not in one
generation.
>Animal breeders fiddle with makeing changes within a species, small
>potatoes.
But until very recently they could only use the variations the come from
nature.
>Secondly, animal breeders are merely rearranging fixed material... its
>called sexual reproduction.
The material isn't fixed over time, just in the particular animals.
>At best they are taking the part of a truly discerning stud animal.
>
>Thirdly "What Nature wants"? Who is this Nature you speak of? Personafying
>the creation no more makes it a god than ignoring GOd makes him go away.
Yes, it was a metaphorical personification, so what?
>Please READ something before you get into this.
>Darwin of trial by Smith
>Darw2in's Black box by Behe
Darwin has won. He discovered something and didn't know what the
mechanism was, but he described what was happening. Mendel discovered
how it happened. Watson, Crick, et al. discovered the detailed
mechanics. Each discovery showed how Darwin was right.
The critics of Darwin rely on the ignorance of their audience to buy the
stories they spin. Not only is there less to their criticism than meets
the eye, but none of the critics offer a scientific alternative to the
current theory of evolution.
Roadrunner
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns936F4C1A09240...@142.77.1.194...
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
> news:bBisa.6438$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> > Is that so? I'm not a christian, however what I do know is that
> > evolution is a fraude. The facts of this earth tell a very different
> > story.
>
> I think you're a fraud. Your apologetic is straight creationist boiler-
> plate. That stuff is invented by fundamentalists (I won't dignify them
> with the name Christian) turned con artist.
There is no excuse for being ignorent. Always criticizing, always offending
and never coming to the point
Roadrunner
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vb4skse...@corp.supernews.com...
And always the same sarcasm, what are you people afraid of?
>
Roadrunner
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:C4usa.192349$JI.43...@twister.neo.rr.com...
And still no one coming to the point! Statements are no facts....
Tom
> > evolution
> > > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
> >
>
> So, you are saying that I sound like a Christian for reason of me
rejecting
> the evolution theory?
Tom: So, what is your common sense approach to the distribution and
diversity of life on earth? You do have a theory, don't you? So far all I've
seen from you is negative comments on evolution. So I ask again, what is
your theory?
Roadrunner
David Jensen
>This is good example of a tautological argument.
>What is must have been what was the "fittest" to survive.
>As such it is a useless concept. A mere restating of one statement as
>another: animals exist, all animals had ancestors, therefore the animals now
>must had had the best ancestors in the past.
>It says nothing other than the obvious and has no power to predict, which is
>the utility of any theory.
>Thus the Theory of evolution is not even a theory
Survival of the fittest is not the theory of evolution. It is a sound
bite that describes an observation about the history of life on earth.
The point that it makes is valid, however: selection pressure will
change populations over time (overturning previous ideas about ideal
forms and degeneration).
Tom
> > > That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
> > > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
> ours.
> > > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
> >
> > Since you define evolution as *religion*.
> > Please define what science is then.
> > Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
>
the
> fossiles themselves.
Tom: and just how is that, RR?
> > were not always the same and therefore the datings are
> > > quite fallible.
> > >
> >
> > So is prayer sometimes.
>
>RR: I don't pray!
Tom: No one really gives a crap about your religion. I just want to know
your explanation for the distribution of the flora and fauna on earth. If
you don't have one, you can take your common sense and slink on out of here.
Tom
> >
> > >> > That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and
solely
> a
> > >> > system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of
> > >ours.
> > >> > Evolution is not provable, That's all.
> > >>
> > >> Not provable? Neither is religion.
> > >> Since you define evolution as *religion*.
> > >> Please define what science is then.
> > >> Fossils are tangible, unlike faith.
> > >
the
> > >fossiles themselves.
> >
> >
> > >> > quite fallible.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> So is prayer sometimes.
> > >
> >
> > I guess you just live under a bridge.
> >
>
Tom: At this point, having not answered a single question nor stated a
theory, I conclude RR is nothing more than the garden variety troll and not
a very good one at that.
Tom
>RR: Get educated first. You are only opposing but not adding anything to
it.
> You will find some data here:
> http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.html
>
> are they afraid of something. What do they want to prove?
>
> Common sense is logical deduction, no more, no less......
Tom: RR is bankrupt. No theory, no explanation. Troll!
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
> news:Onksa.6446$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> >>
> >> More like *who* are you... could it be Kent Hovind, using a public
> >> library computer?
> >>
> >> www.skeptical-christian.net
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't think that Kent Hovind would do such a thing actually, why
> > should he.
> > http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/creation.html
> >
> > Somewhere on that site is a picture of me too....
>
> to sophistry as you seem to be, though. And the only thing HE did well
> was write some passable sci-fi. And it's only passable, not great.
You tell I am, this is not the same!
More than 80% of his writings were no SF, get your records straight!
> But I doubt Hubbard would follow Hovind and repeat his lies. Hubbard was
> too smart for THAT!!!
Please do your homework! There is a page on my website giving Hubbard's
viewpoint on the matter!
Andromeda
World Book is very clear, religion has nothing to do with "evolution".
religion, noun.1. belief in God or gods. Ex. George Washington's religion
was one of his chief supports during the hardships he suffered in the
Revolution. 2. worship of God or gods. Ex. Christians and Jews believe in
the same God but participate in religion on different days. 3. a particular
system of religious belief and worship. Ex. the Christian religion, the
Moslem religion. 4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
Ex. "In Turin football is a religion," observed the narrator (Listener).
Park ... had not made a religion of camping out (New Yorker). expr.
experience religion, to become converted. Ex. Some went so far as to doubt
if she had ever experienced religion (Oliver Wendell Holmes). religionary,
adjective.having to do with religion. Ex. religionary intolerance.
religionism, noun.1. an excessive inclination toward religion. 2. an
exaggerated zeal in religion. religionist, noun.1. a person devoted to
religion. 2. a religious zealot or bigot. Ex. He plunged from the ark into
the canal ... unsuccessfully pursued by a small band of whooping
religionists (New Yorker). religionless, adjective.without religion;
irreligious. religio-political, adjective.having to do with or based upon
both religion and politics. Ex. These are to draw into closer amity the two
religio-political communities in the province (London Times). religiose,
adjective.religious to excess; unduly occupied with religion. religiosity,
noun.1. religious feeling or sentiment; piety. 2. affectation of religious
feeling. Ex. there is too much noisy religiosity on the public level in the
U.S. (Time). religioso, adjective, adverb.(Music.) expressing religious
sentiment; devotional. Ex. What appeals to me as impressive and rewarding is
Poulenc's willingness to follow his expressive urge where it leads him,
whether the mode is ... secular, religioso, whatever (Saturday Review).
religious, adjective, noun, pl. -gious.adj. 1. of religion; connected with
religion. Ex. religious meetings, religious freedom, religious differences.
Technically speaking a religious book is produced by a religious writer
(Harper's). 2. much interested in religion; devoted to the worship of God or
gods. Ex. She is very religious and goes to church every day. (SYN) pious,
devout. 3. belonging to an order of monks, nuns, friars, or the like. 4. of
or connected with such an order. Ex. a shaven head, and a religious habit
(Joseph Addison). 5. strict; done with care; very careful. Ex. Mother gave
religious attention to the doctor's orders. (SYN) exact, scrupulous. noun
1. a monk, nun, friar, or the like; member of a religious order. Ex. There
are sixty religious teaching in this church school. 2. such persons as a
group. Ex. One of Sister Benedicta's fellow religious at Echt soon received
a brief message (Time). adv. religiously. noun religiousness. religious
education,instruction in the beliefs of a religion, as in Sunday school.
NOPE... EVOLUTION NOT MENTIONED THERE!!
IS RELIGION DEFINED WITH EVOLUTION BELOW?
evolution, noun.1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development.
Ex. the evolution of the flower from the bud, the evolution of the modern
steamship from the first crude boat. 2. something evolved; product of
development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3. the theory that all
living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of
physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a
type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple,
perhaps single-celled, organism. 4a. a movement of ships or soldiers,
planned beforehand; deployment. b. any movement into a new formation,
especially in marching. 5. a movement that is a part of a definite plan,
design, or series. Ex. A clumsy person could never achieve the graceful
evolutions of that ballet dancer. 6. a releasing; giving off; setting free,
especially by chemical or physical change. Ex. the evolution of heat from
burning coal. 7. (Mathematics.) the extraction of roots from powers. Finding
the square root of a number is an example of evolution. 8. one of the
regulated and recurring movements of a portion of a machine. 9.
(Philosophy.) the theory that a process or progressive change, with the
development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in
the universe. Ex. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex
(Edward Clodd). evolutional, adjective. = evolutionary.adv. evolutionally.
evolutionarily, adverb.in an evolutionary manner; in accordance with the
theory of evolution. Ex. Each [human population] becomes a separate race
evolutionarily affected by technological and other cultural factors (John J.
Honigmann). Evolutionarily speaking, brains--of a sort, at least--are a
fairly early development (Listener). evolutionary, adjective.1. having to do
with evolution; evolutional. 2. in accordance with the theory of evolution.
3. performing evolutions; having to do with evolutions. evolutionism,
noun.the biological doctrine of evolution. Ex. Herbert Spencer's
evolutionism, Alfred Tennyson's poems, the fashion of geologizing--all were
the expression of a general movement (Scientific American). evolutionist,
noun, adjective.noun a person who believes in and supports the theory of
evolution. adj. = evolutionistic. evolutionistic, adjective.1. tending to
support the theory of evolution. 2. that produces evolution. adv.
evolutionistically. evolutive, adjective.having to do with or tending to
evolution or development; promoting evolution. Ex. To establish a
comparative and evolutive physiology of the heart, we must try to create a
technique with any kind of vertebrate animal which will allow the heart to
survive for long periods wide open (New Scientist). evolvable,
adjective.that can be evolved. evolve, verb, evolved, evolving.v.t. 1. to
develop gradually; work out; unfold. Ex. The boys evolved a plan for earning
money during their summer vacation. 2. (Biology.) to develop by a process of
growth and change to a more highly organized condition. 3. to release; give
off; set free, as gases. v.i. 1. to be developed by evolution. Ex. Buds
evolve into flowers. The modern automobile evolved from the horse and buggy.
2. to become an evolue. Ex. To "evolve," an African must reach a certain
educational and economic level (Wall Street Journal). evolvement, noun.1.
the act or process of evolving. 2. the condition of being evolved. evolvent,
adjective, noun.adj. that evolves. noun the involute of a curve.
evolver, noun.a person or thing that evolves.
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
> news:pHksa.6447$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> >> > Ever heard of common sense? You look at the physical evidence on
> >> > this
> > planet
> >> > and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely based
> >> > on logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or the
> > creationism
> >> > idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which you then can
> >> > categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It is also
> >> > of no basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's much
> >> > more
> > interesting
> >> > to study WHY people believe the things they do.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hovind's physical reasons for creationism on the web page you posted
> >> is flawed or outdated. It contains the same old *LIES* that has
> >> marked the creationist movement and its leaders from the 1960s. Many
> >> of the arguments on this
> > page
> >> are arguments abandoned by ICR, an acknowledged leader in the
> >> Creationist movement.
> >
> > Common sense did not abandon them...
> >
> >>
> >> But sorry, I think that you probably are a Christian, posing as a
> >> non-Christian in order to make a point. Would that be a sheep in
> >> wolves' clothing? As for putting you in a box, why, I'll feel as free
> >> to put you
> > in
> >> a box as you feel free to put me into one.
> >
> > I have not accepted Christ as my saviour as Christians do. I do not
> > pray and I do not visit any church for that purpose. Putting in a box,
> > creates a fixed condition. Objectivity has the tendency to vanish if
> > we do so. I did not put you in any box, you say I did, this is not the
> > same.
> >
> >>
> >> However, I invite you to use your stunning intellect to discuss the
> >> evidences for creation. Please prepare your scientific evidences, and
> >> be ready to discuss the implications they present. Be ready also to
> >> discuss issues such as the dates your evidences are from, and what
> >> the most recent research in the matter is.
> >
> > Again, is that of any importance? Why are you so eager to defend your
> > view? I simply urge people not to be fixated about anything. You are
> > assuming I am Christian when I am not. As evolutionist assume this
> > universe is billions of years of old when this is not provable.
> >
> >>
> >> By the way, sir. How about a bit of personal information? Age,
> >> education? Anything that would mark you as a person of expertise in a
> >> certain area? Even the creationist leaders claim their doctorates,
> >> you know. So a bit of knowledge about whom I am dealing with would be
> >> welcome.
> >
> > I put out Kent Hovind's seminar on my homepage, there is some data
> > about me too there. Age? Who cares, again putting in some box.
> > Education? Common sense is not based on knowledge, it is simply an
> > ability to deduct. Children are often much smarter then grown-ups even
> > with their may be limited factual knowledge.
>
> Kent Hovind first came to my attention when someone cited his fraudulent
> $250K challenge to "prove" evolution where he defines the "proof" as
> proving that God did not create the universe. This is fraudulent for a
> number of reasons. First, due to Hovind's ongoing problems with the US
> Federal government, he has had to declare assets in public court cases and
> he either does not HAVE the $250K or he has been lying under oath about
> not having it. Second, and perhaps more important, the "proof" that he
> requires is not evidence for evolution but evidence for some sort of
> atheistic cosmogenesis that, even if it were true would not be evidence
> for evolution (or against it). And HE gets to decide who the judges will
> be AND what will be presented to them. That's not a challenge, it's a
> piece of propaganda. He can't lose and he knows he can't lose.
>
> But, if he would submit himself to a reasonable jury on the question "do
> humans and chimpanzees share a common genetic ancestor?" With the same
> rules for discovery and points of law that govern a civil suit, he'd
> likely lose. The evidence for that was strong back when he first
> published his "challenge." It has gotten a lot stronger and continues to
> do so as we sequence the chimp genome and match it with our own.
>
> Some of the more interesting smoking guns are the parts where the chimp
> and human genomes are identical but differ from those of other mammals and
> even of other primates. Some of that is important with respect to the
> differences between the chimp/human branch and the gorillas and orangs,
> but some of it is just scratches on the negative--viral insertions
> inherited from a common ancestor.
>
> Another problem I have with Kent Hovind is that he lies a lot. I watched
> him on my TV tell us about what's wrong with 14C dating. The fact is all
> the man did was betray his ignorance of 14C dating, how and why it's done
> the way it is and what it can be used for and not used for. In other
> words, far from being an expert, as he claims, he is totally ignorant of
> the subject.
>
> And then there's his PhD. Ask him where to get a copy of his thesis
> sometime. The last person I know of who got a straight answer at all was
> told that it isn't finished yet. One immediately wants to know what kind
> of university issues degrees on the basis of unfinished work!!!
>
> And then, after regaling me with lies about 14C dating, Hovind told me
> with a straight face that the government was watching him through his TV!
>
> It's amazing! This man is onto the best con game available in the USA.
> Nobody will EVER bust him for lying about science in the name of religion
> (though he needs to watch the civil torts). Yet he's too stupid to pay
> his taxes!
>
> I'm sorry, son, you need a better class of hero! I could offer you a
> couple or three of mine. There's Polkinghorne, of course. Then there's
> Gandhi, and a whole host of saints like Francis of Assisi. Even Aquinas
> and Augustine have their places in the history of western thought. But
> Hovind will never be more than a joke.
>
You are giving no specifics, only statements. Statemnts are pretty bad
arguments.
David Jensen
topposted this <vb4vbnj...@corp.supernews.com>:
>It must be hard to be so wrong.
You seem to have no problem doing it.
>Firstly, Darwin publish a little over 100 hundred years ago not 200.
The hypothesis Young Earth Creation was known to be wrong two hundred
years ago. Questions about the history of life on earth were already
arising. Yes, Darwin didn't publish until 144 years ago, but all
historical evidence showed that his ideas had come from his Beagle
travels, far earlier in his life. Other scientists had also brought up
the question, but were stymied by a lack of sufficient data.
>Secondly, scientific unanimity has HARDLY been enjoyed by it and has been
>increasing for 50 years, despite the overwhelming attempts to silence it.
Not true.
>Recently, a CA med school professor was sued because he refused to give a
>recommendation (a routine procedure) to any med student who didn't BELIEVE
>in the theory.
Who? When? Where?
>Thirdly, are you arguing from authority?
No.
> If so Read: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box, Ross's "The Genesis Question",
>Smith's "Darwin on Trial"
Both are lousy authorities who ignore evidence.
>Fourthly, you have made no attempt to define "fittest"
So what?
> if you merely mean that those that survive must have been "fittest"
>since they survived, you have made an excellent example of a tautology and
>thus the theory is no theory at all as it has no power to predict and very
>little to elucidate.
The theory of evolution is not what you claim it is.
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
> news:Rbksa.6444$dP1....@newsc.telia.net:
>
> >
> > "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote in message
> > news:BAD744A6.4104C7%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
> >> in article kGjsa.6443$dP1....@newsc.telia.net, Roadrunner at
> >> peg...@privat.utfors.se wrote on 5/1/03 9:17 PM:
> >>
> >> > "David Lee" <david...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:2b933e90.03050...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> Pastor Dave barfed:
> >> >> Evolutionists believe what they believe by faith. That
> >> >> makes it a religion.
> >> >
> >> >> make it a rreligion. Get a Unabridged Dictionary and find the
> >> >> definiton of religion that says believing in anything on "faith"
> >> >> alone as you call it makes it a religion. There is no such
> >> >> defintion. It is a defintion made up out of thin air by
> >> >> Creationists. The only time faith becomes a religion is when it is
> >> >> combined with belief in a deity, stupid.
> >> >
> > worship'
> >> > The deity would be 'evolution'
> >> >
> > evolution
> >> > I find not being very scientific. It's definitely religious.
> >> >
> >>
> >> do you support the "Christian" view of creation as espoused by
> >> Christian fundamentalists? After all, you put up Hovind's web site.
> >>
> >> It does not seem reasonable for you to say you are not a Christian
> >> but support the Christian fundamentalist version of creationism. So,
> >> what are
> > you?
> >
> > planet and may be coming from elsewhere. Then you may decide solely
> > based on logical deduction if it resembles more the evolution idea or
> > the creationism idea. Please do not attemp to put me in some box which
> > you then can categorize, this is of no importance, common sense is. It
> > is also of no basic importance if it was evolution or creation, it's
> > much more interesting to study WHY people believe the things they do.
>
> Attacking straw men is utterly pointless. But it IS a common frailty and
> one that latter-day creationists exploit a lot. Maybe this type of
> sophistry is also taught in their academies of illogic?
You are arguing, still no specifics.
Roadrunner
Lacking specifics, never getting to the point. Typical evolutionist's line
of thinking....
David Jensen
>
>Lacking specifics, never getting to the point. Typical evolutionist's line
>of thinking....
>
Until you provide some specific objections to the theory of evolution,
we don't have any specifics to respond to.
Don't try to get them from Hovind. He has no idea what he is talking
about.
Andromeda
3. a particular
system of religious belief and worship. Ex. the Christian religion, the
Moslem religion.
Pssst, Tom... notice last night, our poster wrote that it was a "system of
belief"... sort of played with the actual definition there!
Word games...
Dictionary specifies it must be a RELIGIOUS!! System of Beliefs to be a
religion. What's *religious* about evolution Roadrunner? Pray tell, like I
asked you last night bud, friend, compadre'... when was the last time you
saw evolutionists sacrificing animals or babies to a god(s), or keeping holy
days for evolutionary festivals, etc etc... what is *Religious* about
evolution friend?
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:Mhksa.6445$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
> That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
> system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of ours.
> Evolution is not provable, That's all.
Neither is your version of Creationism... in fact, far worse, everything
science has turned up, CONTRADICTS your version of the earth's origins.
Roadrunner
> In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote
> in <Uuvsa.6497$dP1....@newsc.telia.net>:
>
> >
> >Lacking specifics, never getting to the point. Typical evolutionist's
line
> >of thinking....
> >
> Until you provide some specific objections to the theory of evolution,
> we don't have any specifics to respond to.
So you admit that evolution is a theory then. A theory is no fact you know.
>
> Don't try to get them from Hovind. He has no idea what he is talking
> about.
Stating this does not disprove Hovind's arguments.....
Andromeda
news:Mhksa.6445$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
> That's not the definition of religion. Religion is simply and solely a
> system of beliefs. Not really provable in this physical universe of ours.
> Evolution is not provable, That's all.
I will repeat myself Roadrunner... you played with the definition.
Dictionary does NOT say, "simply and solely a system of beliefs" now does
it? YOU LIED. It states, "a RELIGIOUS system of beliefs".
Why would you want to deceive people? Tell us, what is remotely religious
about Evolution. Where is a *god* or *gods* or a deity wrapped up in the
science? I'll tell, nada, zilch, nothing - - not one thing found religious
about evolution.