TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III
jabriol
Third "Day"
"'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and
let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling the
dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."
(Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done.
No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his
knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth's history
are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their
waves were limited by dry land-many things in general about the creation,
spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a
building, the Bible says that God asked Job: "Into what have its socket
pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?"-Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like "socket pedestals," earth's crust is much thicker under
continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the
underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. "The idea that mountains and
continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be
valid," says Putnam's Geology. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick,
but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate
about twice that far. And all earth's layers press inward upon earth's core
from all directions, making it like a great "cornerstone" of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the
important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the
stages in the forming of the earth.
Libertarius
jabriol wrote:
===>The Earth is not a continent. -- L.
jabriol
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F57FA71.F39CD013@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
we are talking here about the planet... but even in english... dry land is
also refered to as earth..
R Brown
"jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote in message
news:b9Z5b.3695219$cI2.5...@news.easynews.com...
the earth to the construction of a house's foundation. Like most of the
Bible - it's alegory and not factual.
As for the crust being thicker under mountains and thiner under the ocean
geologists call it isostacy. My kids learn it in my grade 11 science class.
The thin, brittle crust rides on top of the plastic athenosphere. Like an
ice cube floating in water, the more ice you have above the surface then the
more ice is needed under the surface to provide the buoyancy required.
Weight is obviously a factor; that's why portions of the north american
plate are still rising: from the retreat of the massive ice sheets
approximately 11,000 years ago.
What a terrible thing fear and ignorance are!!!
John Hattan
>Third "Day"
>
> "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and
>let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling the
>dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."
>(Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done.
>No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
>formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
>catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
Problem is, there's no evidence of it happening that way.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Dirk Murcray
> Third "Day"
>
> "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and
> let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so.
Not surprisngly, ancient Hebrew folklore (the Bible) got it wrong from
the get-go. Dry land did not "appear" from the waters, rather it was
the other way around. There were no seas, or any substantial
quantities of liquid water on the earth's surface for nearly a billion
years. When the oceans did form, two-thirds of the dry land
disappeared.
>And God began calling the
> dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."
> (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done.
> No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
> formation of land areas.
Wrong again. No crustal movement (beyond localized resurfacing due to
vulcanism) was involved or possible until ocean formation initiated
plate tectonics.
>Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
> catastrophism.
Catastrophism has been dead since geology was in its infancy.
>But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
No sh*t. No news there.
<snip remainder. Since the premise is wrong, all that follows is
obviously irrelevant)
John Ings
>Oh for cryin' out loud! God is making an analogy between his construction of
>the earth to the construction of a house's foundation.
The ancients believed it literally, not allegorically. That's a
cosmology they learned during their Babylonian captivity; a round,
flat earth with a solid sky dome over it, a dome held up by pillars
resting on a foundation. The construct looked rather like a garden
gazebo.
>Like most of the Bible - it's alegory and not factual.
Erroneous and not factual.
>What a terrible thing fear and ignorance are!!!
Especially in the form of superstitious religion.
## Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
jabriol
"R Brown" <br...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d06b.3555$J6.1155@pd7tw3no...
it factual, the explanation is to make it easier from from the human
perception. to indicate that an event occured.
jabriol
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:uv3hlvkn3vnn7cuh2...@4ax.com...
> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
>
> >Third "Day"
> >
> > "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place
and
> >let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling the
> >dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."
> >(Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was
done.
> >No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
> >formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
> >catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
>
> Problem is, there's no evidence of it happening that way.
sorta like evolution as the origin of man eh?
.com http://www.shatnerology.com
jabriol
"Dirk Murcray" <dmur...@wwcc.cc.wy.us> wrote in message
news:ceb080d7.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote in message
news:<AmS5b.527233$Bf5....@news.easynews.com>...
> > Third "Day"
> >
> > "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place
and
> > let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so.
>
> Not surprisngly, ancient Hebrew folklore (the Bible) got it wrong from
> the get-go. Dry land did not "appear" from the waters, rather it was
> the other way around. There were no seas, or any substantial
> quantities of liquid water on the earth's surface for nearly a billion
> years. When the oceans did form, two-thirds of the dry land
> disappeared.
the scripture does not say at what time did God, commence his "construction"
on the planet. As stated in a previous post.
Libertarius
John Ings wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:29:32 GMT, "R Brown" <br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh for cryin' out loud! God is making an analogy between his construction of
> >the earth to the construction of a house's foundation.
>
> The ancients believed it literally, not allegorically. That's a
> cosmology they learned during their Babylonian captivity; a round,
> flat earth with a solid sky dome over it, a dome held up by pillars
> resting on a foundation. The construct looked rather like a garden
> gazebo.
===>Biblicists will forever try to blame their primitive cosmology on
"God". Why not admit it was written as imagined by pre-scientific
writers? -- L.
Libertarius
jabriol wrote:
===>You don't understand evolution, but from what you think of it,
at least you admit there is no evidence for that fable in the Bible.
That is progress! -- L.
jabriol
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
oh, I understand it well....
I doubt that you do..
here is the question I call the Buddika colosal hole:
Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
everyone evade this as the plague
=^..^= }<(((0>
>
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
> news:3F592CCE.CD47962B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
> >
No matter what you answer Jabber's is now claiming most of his posts are
FORGERIES and he's NUKED most off Google. Just to let you all know his new
slimy game here on Usenet.
Larry Keebler
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>sorta like evolution as the origin of man eh?
No one but a religious fanatic claims that a) man had a distinct
origin or that b) evolution is abiogenesis.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Varicose Brain
>> Problem is, there's no evidence of it happening that way.
>
>sorta like evolution as the origin of man eh?
Jaberiol, somebody ought to fuck you in the ear to give you some
brains.
John Hattan
Shall I accept your attempt to change the subject as a concession that
there is indeed no evidence for your position?
jabriol
> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
>
> >"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >news:uv3hlvkn3vnn7cuh2...@4ax.com...
> >> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Third "Day"
> >> >
> >> > "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place
> >and
> >> >let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling
the
> >> >dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called
Seas."
> >> >(Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was
> >done.
> >> >No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
> >> >formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals
as
> >> >catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a
Creator.
> >>
> >> Problem is, there's no evidence of it happening that way.
> >
> >sorta like evolution as the origin of man eh?
>
> Shall I accept your attempt to change the subject as a concession that
> there is indeed no evidence for your position?
no attempt here..there is no evidence that evolution is the origin of man
neither.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
"evolution".
>everyone evade this as the plague
Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
Al Klein
<no-rea...@the-wickedWTs.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>No matter what you answer Jabber's is now claiming most of his posts are
>FORGERIES and he's NUKED most off Google. Just to let you all know his new
>slimy game here on Usenet.
You mean that his new game is his old game?
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
Mark K. Bilbo
> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
>
>>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>>news:uv3hlvkn3vnn7cuh2...@4ax.com...
>>> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Third "Day"
>>> >
>>> > "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place
>>and
>>> >let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so. And God began calling
>>> >the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called
>>> >Seas." (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how
>>> >this was
>>done.
>>> >No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
>>> >formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals
>>> >as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a
>>> >Creator.
>>>
>>> Problem is, there's no evidence of it happening that way.
>>
>>sorta like evolution as the origin of man eh?
>
> Shall I accept your attempt to change the subject as a concession that
> there is indeed no evidence for your position?
Has there *ever been evidence for a Jabber's position?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:56:56 -0500, "=^..^= }<\(\(\(0>"
> <no-rea...@the-wickedWTs.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>No matter what you answer Jabber's is now claiming most of his posts are
>>FORGERIES and he's NUKED most off Google. Just to let you all know his
>>new slimy game here on Usenet.
>
> You mean that his new game is his old game?
The posting on the left has become the posting on the right...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
georgann
> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> "evolution".
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
jabriol
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2g2llvslc2cc1f3pa...@Pern.rk...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:10:48 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
>
> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> "evolution".
still no evidence of "man evolved" ... just speculation.
"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>
> >everyone evade this as the plague
>
> Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
>
> Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
> --
the scientific method is meaningless?
I see... so evolution is based on faith.
John Wilkins
> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> > There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> > "evolution".
>
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>
> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>
Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means
in science.
Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories do
in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2g2llvslc2cc1f3pa...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:10:48 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
>>
>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>> "evolution".
>
>still no evidence of "man evolved" ... just speculation.
>
>"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>
>> Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
>>
>> Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
>> --
>
>the scientific method is meaningless?
>
>I see... so evolution is based on faith.
...as if you know what the scientic method is.
jabriol
"Varicose Brain" <lacr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:qukmlv4ajiu6dq7b5...@4ax.com...
Well then please tell us how does the evolution of man pass the scientific
method.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:2g2llvslc2cc1f3pa...@Pern.rk...
>> >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:10:48 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
>> >> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >>
>> >> >Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
>> >>
>> >> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>> >> "evolution".
>> >
>> >still no evidence of "man evolved" ... just speculation.
>> >
>> >"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>> >
>> >> Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
>> >>
>> >> Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >the scientific method is meaningless?
>> >
>> >I see... so evolution is based on faith.
>>
>> ...as if you know what the scientic method is.
>
>Well then please tell us how does the evolution of man pass the scientific
>method.
Oink, oink...
That means that I don't throw pearls before swine...
jabriol
Well then, once again.. we see that no one, can't use the scientific method
to justify evolution as the origin of man..
therfore we must rely on faith..
evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> Oink, oink...
>>
>> That means that I don't throw pearls before swine...
>
>
>Well then, once again.. we see that no one, can't use the scientific method
>to justify evolution as the origin of man..
>therfore we must rely on faith..
>evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
Just who is in included "we" that you are talking about?
jabriol
readers of the thread...
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> >> Oink, oink...
>> >>
>> >> That means that I don't throw pearls before swine...
>> >
>> >
>> >Well then, once again.. we see that no one, can't use the scientific
>method
>> >to justify evolution as the origin of man..
>> >therfore we must rely on faith..
>> >evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
>>
>> Just who is in included "we" that you are talking about?
>>
>
>readers of the thread...
How do you know this? Did you take a poll? Did the readers vote for
you to be their spokesperson?
jabriol
uh.. please read how usenet work...
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote:
>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>> "evolution".
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the
word used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in
breeding populations change over time.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
If we're in a church, yes.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2g2llvslc2cc1f3pa...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:10:48 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>> "evolution".
>still no evidence of "man evolved"
Except for all the evidence.
>"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
Except for all the evidence.
>> >everyone evade this as the plague
>> Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
>> Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
>the scientific method is meaningless?
No, your posts are.
>I see
No, you've never seen.
>... so evolution is based on faith.
Yes, the faith that reality is real. And the tons of evidence that
back up that faith.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Well then please tell us how does the evolution of man pass the scientific
>method.
Evolution is observed every day. (You're not a clone of your parent.)
Science doesn't look for evidence to prove that what is observed is
what is observed.
That you don't have any idea of what "evolution" means is your
problem, not ours.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> >> >> Oink, oink...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That means that I don't throw pearls before swine...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Well then, once again.. we see that no one, can't use the scientific
>> >method
>> >> >to justify evolution as the origin of man..
>> >> >therfore we must rely on faith..
>> >> >evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
>> >>
>> >> Just who is in included "we" that you are talking about?
>> >>
>> >
>> >readers of the thread...
>>
>> How do you know this? Did you take a poll? Did the readers vote for
>> you to be their spokesperson?
>>
>
>uh.. please read how usenet work...
OK, apparently I, too, can be a self-proclaimed spokesperson for the
masses of readers in a newsgroup.
Therefore, "we" see that if the story of the creation is true as it is
presented in the bible, then all human beings are descendants of Adam
and Eve. (or more appropriately, Noah and his clan after the flood)
However, "we" know that this is NOT true, because if it were so, all
men throughout the world would share the same "Y" chromosome, and "we"
know that this is not the case.
Wow! This spokesperson stuff is fun!
Ron B.
> Therefore, "we" see that if the story of the creation is true as it is
> presented in the bible, then all human beings are descendants of Adam
> and Eve. (or more appropriately, Noah and his clan after the flood)
> However, "we" know that this is NOT true, because if it were so, all men
> throughout the world would share the same "Y" chromosome, and "we" know
> that this is not the case.
Well maybe all humans would have the same mitochondrial DNA. The Y
chromosome is different for each sperm produced by _one_ male. If this
were not true, then dominant traits carried on the Y would be passed to
all male children.
John Hattan
John Hattan
Well, that's all the proof I need. After all, it states very clearly
that "we" agree that it's true!
John Hattan
>On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:39:11 GMT, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
>posted in alt.atheism:
>>"Al Klein" wrote:
>
>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>> "evolution".
>
>>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>>That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>
>>I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>
>The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the
>word used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in
>breeding populations change over time.
Honestly Al. This is Georgann here. She probably thinks that allele
frequencies are broadcast by Canadian radio stations :)
Libertarius
georgann wrote:
> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> > There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> > "evolution".
>
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>
> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
===>IGNORANCE speaking again, pretending to be
wisdom.
EVOLUTION is a major aspect of nature.
Theories are an aspect of science.
Scientific theories are developed to unify observations and
provide an explanation for HOW things (e.g. evolution) work. -- L.
Libertarius
jabriol wrote:
===>How does ANYTHING "pass the scientific method"???
Dumb question! -- L.
Libertarius
jabriol wrote:
===>No one "uses the scientific method"
to "justify" ANYTHING!
>
> therfore we must rely on faith..
> evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
===>Dumb premise, stupid conclusion. -- L.
J.R.
When God wants a BLOW JOB, does he use the scientific method?
jabriol
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:16:58 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:2g2llvslc2cc1f3pa...@Pern.rk...
> >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:10:48 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> >> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >Does evolution as the origin of man pass the scientific method...?
>
> >> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> >> "evolution".
>
> >still no evidence of "man evolved"
>
> Except for all the evidence.
what evidence?
>
> >"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>
> Except for all the evidence.
what evidence?
>
> >> >everyone evade this as the plague
>
> >> Is your yellow loud? Will you evade this question?
>
> >> Of course everyone "evades" your question - it's meaningless.
>
> >the scientific method is meaningless?
>
> No, your posts are.
well then dont reply to them..
but you still nor anyone else has explained why evolution does not pass the
scientific method.. we know nyou cant explain it.
>
> >I see
>
> No, you've never seen.
>
> >... so evolution is based on faith.
>
> Yes, the faith that reality is real. And the tons of evidence that
> back up that faith.
what evidence?
georgann
>>
>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>> "evolution".
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
"John Wilkins" wrote:
> Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means in
> science. Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories
> do in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
"man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
What pretzel logic is it that commands you people to look at some facts,
which may or may be part of evidence for such a theory, then cleverly talk
about the theory as it if contains nothing but facts? Particularly where it
applies to man?
It only *after* someone catches you and calls you on this blatantly
dishonest practice that you chant your little ditties about what theories
are and are not ... what evolution is and is not ... never giving an
adequate reason for your dishonest use of this phraseology.
georgann
>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>> "evolution".
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
"Al Klein" wrote:
> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the word
> used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in breeding
> populations change over time.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Well, then you should have no trouble showing us the "observed facts" that,
as you to said, "man evolved".
I'm sure there's a major science prize in it for you if you can, Al.
georgann
>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>> "evolution".
>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>>> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the
>> word used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in
>> breeding populations change over time.
"John Hattan" wrote:
> Honestly Al. This is Georgann here. She probably thinks that allele
> frequencies are broadcast by Canadian radio stations :)
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Al hasn't proved that "man evolved". And your attempting to talk down to me
doesn't help him at all. If you have something to help him prove that "man
evolved" and the "observed facts" that allow you to claim this proof, by all
means John, dish.
georgann
>>>> I see... so evolution is based on faith.
>>> ...as if you know what the scientic method is.
>> Well then please tell us how does the evolution of man pass the scientific
>> method.
"Libertarius" wrote:
> ===>How does ANYTHING "pass the scientific method"??? Dumb question! -- L.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Good distraction.
Robibnikoff
>
>>>> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
>>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>>> "evolution".
>
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
>>>> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>
>>> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the
>>> word used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in
>>> breeding populations change over time.
>
>"John Hattan" wrote:
>
>> Honestly Al. This is Georgann here. She probably thinks that allele
>> frequencies are broadcast by Canadian radio stations :)
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>Al hasn't proved that "man evolved". And your attempting to talk down to me
>doesn't help him at all. If you have something to help him prove that "man
>evolved" and the "observed facts" that allow you to claim this proof, by all
>means John, dish.
Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and
Eve?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
John Hattan
>>> "Al Klein" wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>> "evolution".
>
>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>
>"John Wilkins" wrote:
>
>> Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means in
>> science. Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories
>> do in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
>you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
>"man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
>evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
Problem is, you've already stated that you think all those old skulls
are human-angel hybrids. To quote Thomas Paine, to try to argue with
someone who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the
dead.
georgann
>>>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>>>> "evolution".
>>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>>>>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>>>> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the word
>>>> used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in breeding
>>>> populations change over time.
>> "John Hattan" wrote:
>>> Honestly Al. This is Georgann here. She probably thinks that allele
>>> frequencies are broadcast by Canadian radio stations :)
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> Al hasn't proved that "man evolved". And your attempting to talk down to me
>> doesn't help him at all. If you have something to help him prove that "man
>> evolved" and the "observed facts" that allow you to claim this proof, by all
>> means John, dish.
"Robibnikoff" wrote:
> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and
> Eve?
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
What's my belief got to do with Al's failure to address his own claim ... or
for that matter what's it got to do with John's evasive maneuvers?
Robibnikoff
>
snippage
>
>"Robibnikoff" wrote:
>
>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and
>> Eve?
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>What's my belief got to do with Al's failure to address his own claim ... or
>for that matter what's it got to do with John's evasive maneuvers?
Oh I'm sorry. It would appear that once again I've asked you a question that
was obviously too difficult for you to answer - otherwise you would have done so
instead of posing another question.
Dirk Murcray
> "Dirk Murcray" <dmur...@wwcc.cc.wy.us> wrote in message
> news:ceb080d7.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote in message
> news:<AmS5b.527233$Bf5....@news.easynews.com>...
> > > Third "Day"
> > >
> > > "'Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place
> and
> > > let the dry land appear.' And it came to be so.
> >
> > Not surprisngly, ancient Hebrew folklore (the Bible) got it wrong from
> > the get-go. Dry land did not "appear" from the waters, rather it was
> > the other way around. There were no seas, or any substantial
> > quantities of liquid water on the earth's surface for nearly a billion
> > years. When the oceans did form, two-thirds of the dry land
> > disappeared.
>
>
> the scripture does not say at what time did God, commence his "construction"
> on the planet. As stated in a previous post.
Which of course changes nothing regarding the fact that the oceans
formed and inundated two-thirds of the earth, and dry land did not
appear from the waters.
> >
> >
> > >And God began calling the
> > > dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."
> > > (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was
> done.
> > > No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the
> > > formation of land areas.
> >
> > Wrong again. No crustal movement (beyond localized resurfacing due to
> > vulcanism) was involved or possible until ocean formation initiated
> > plate tectonics.
> >
> > >Geologists would explain such major upheavals as
> > > catastrophism.
> >
> > Catastrophism has been dead since geology was in its infancy.
> >
> > >But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
> >
> > No sh*t. No news there.
> >
> > <snip remainder. Since the premise is wrong, all that follows is
> > obviously irrelevant)
Dirk Murcray
jabriol
"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:zR_6b.19079$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve...
how do you explain that?
Libertarius
georgann wrote:
===>How would YOU know what might constitute an HONEST
use of phraseology?
If you did, you would use it.
Libertarius
georgann wrote:
> >> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> >>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> >>> "evolution".
>
> >> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
> >> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
> >> I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>
> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> > The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the word
> > used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in breeding
> > populations change over time.
>
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
> Well, then you should have no trouble showing us the "observed facts" that,
> as you to said, "man evolved".
>
> I'm sure there's a major science prize in it for you if you can, Al.
===>WHAT A LIAR!
Are you denying the existence of DNA EVIDENCE?
How would you prove that an abandoned child discovered by you
belonged to a certain family?
How would you determine if a skeleton found was of a person of
a certain age, gender and ethnic background?
Your abysmal ignorance smells to high heaven and the gods
are all holding their noses as they look down on you, seeing you
as a grasshopper. -- L.
Libertarius
georgann wrote:
> >>>> the scientific method is meaningless?
> >>>> I see... so evolution is based on faith.
>
> >>> ...as if you know what the scientic method is.
>
> >> Well then please tell us how does the evolution of man pass the scientific
> >> method.
>
> "Libertarius" wrote:
>
> > ===>How does ANYTHING "pass the scientific method"??? Dumb question! -- L.
>
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
> Good distraction.
===>STUPID COMMENT, GORGON!
Libertarius
Robibnikoff wrote:
===>No.
She DISHONESTLY believes that ancient fable.
Raymond E. Griffith
jab...@sparta.org wrote on 9/8/03 6:35 PM:
Easy. The Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to have ever lived.
Every human being conceived obtains the mitochondria in his cells from the
original mitochondria in the mother's egg. Thus all DNA in the mitochondria
subcellular structures is obtained from the mother.
The Mitochondrial Eve is the "most-recent common ancestor of all humans
alive on Earth today w.r.t. matrilineal descent".
We all have a mother. A mother who bears only sons, or whose daughters die
before having children, is eliminated from the matrilineal descent lines of
later generations.
For a basic treatment of the topic, see
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html
Libertarius
John Hattan wrote:
===>But to become a good Paulinist, all you need to do is to become one of the
MOROI DIA CHRISTON (=morons for Christos -- 1 Cor. 4:10) -- L.
Roy Mock
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g0xuly.1hx6xro1cuhtcmN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > "Al Klein" wrote:
> >
> > > There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> > > "evolution".
> >
> > georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
> >
> > That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
> >
> > I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
> >
> in science.
Can you or someone with a science background explain scientific methodology?
This is my current understanding: Scientific methodology tests the
probability of any given proposition by validation.
> Evolution is fact.
I would have thought it is a 'best fit' of the observed data and is helpful
for those in the biological or earth sciences.
> It also needs explanation. This is what theories do
> in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
Yes. I tend to say that science seeks to deal with the when and how of our
phenomenal world; whilst the Bible deals with relationships - the Who and
why - how we relate to each other and to our Creator.
In my mind they are not in conflict. But I'd rather not neglect the Who and
why.
John Hattan
>"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:zR_6b.19079$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
>> and Eve?
>
>yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve...
Along with a Y-chromosome Adam who lived tens of thousands of years more
recently than the Mitochondrial Eve.
>how do you explain that?
All humans sprang from a common group of people.
How do you explain "Eve" being a few tens of thousands of years older
than "Adam"?
John Hattan
Lessee. . .dumb, weak, and without honor. That's fundamentalism in a
nutshell.
jabriol
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:55:24 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> Oink, oink...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That means that I don't throw pearls before swine...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well then, once again.. we see that no one, can't use the
scientific
> >> >method
> >> >> >therfore we must rely on faith..
> >> >> >evolution another god for the pantheon of science.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >readers of the thread...
> >>
> >> How do you know this? Did you take a poll? Did the readers vote for
> >> you to be their spokesperson?
> >>
> >
> >uh.. please read how usenet work...
>
> OK, apparently I, too, can be a self-proclaimed spokesperson for the
> masses of readers in a newsgroup.
>
> Therefore, "we" see that if the story of the creation is true as it is
> presented in the bible, then all human beings are descendants of Adam
> and Eve. (or more appropriately, Noah and his clan after the flood)
> However, "we" know that this is NOT true, because if it were so, all
> men throughout the world would share the same "Y" chromosome, and "we"
> know that this is not the case.
>
> Wow! This spokesperson stuff is fun!
>
well.. there goes Mitochondrial Eve down the toilet eh??
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Al hasn't proved that "man evolved".
If you're not a clone of your parent, you've evolved.
Oh, you belong to a species in which 2 parents are required? Then
you've definitely evolved. Your alleles are NOT those of your
parents.
> And your attempting to talk down to me
>doesn't help him at all. If you have something to help him prove that "man
>evolved" and the "observed facts" that allow you to claim this proof, by all
>means John, dish.
I just did, so John can spend his time spoiling Maggie.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve...
>how do you explain that?
The same way I explain why milk costs more than paper. It has nothing
to do with the biblical Eve.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:h6knlvk2ffitf0jko...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:16:58 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >still no evidence of "man evolved"
>> Except for all the evidence.
>what evidence?
You're not a clone of your parent? You had TWO parents? Then you've
evolved. (Not your definition of the word, science's definition.)
>> >"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>> Except for all the evidence.
>what evidence?
See above.
>but you still nor anyone else has explained why evolution does not pass the
>scientific method.
There's no such thing as "pass the scientific method". The words
don't mean anything. That's why no one has explained it.
>. we know nyou cant explain it.
Just as you can't explain why yellow is smarter than loud.
>> >... so evolution is based on faith.
>> Yes, the faith that reality is real. And the tons of evidence that
>> back up that faith.
>what evidence?
See above.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"John Wilkins" wrote:
>> Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means in
>> science. Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories
>> do in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
>you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
>"man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
>evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
No, what it means is that you're too ignorant to understand what
biological evolution means.
>What pretzel logic is it that commands you people to look at some facts,
>which may or may be part of evidence for such a theory
The theory is an explanation of the evidence, not the other way
around.
> then cleverly talk about the theory as it if contains nothing but facts?
Evolution is a fact. No one has been talking about OOA, punctuated
equilibrium, etc.
> Particularly where it applies to man?
Evolution applies to all living things in exactly the same way.
Biologically man is just another species, no more special than a
planarian.
>It only *after* someone catches you and calls you on this blatantly
>dishonest practice that you chant your little ditties about what theories
>are and are not ... what evolution is and is not ... never giving an
>adequate reason for your dishonest use of this phraseology.
The only dishonesty is yours in implying that you understand enough to
discuss the subject intelligently when you don't.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote:
>> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the word
>> used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in breeding
>> populations change over time.
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>Well, then you should have no trouble showing us the "observed facts" that,
>as you to said, "man evolved".
You aren't a clone of your parent. If you don't understand how that's
proof of evolution it's not my problem.
>I'm sure there's a major science prize in it for you if you can, Al.
"Proving" something that was proved when I was a little kid?
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
Al Klein
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>Your abysmal ignorance smells to high heaven and the gods
>are all holding their noses as they look down on you, seeing you
>as a grasshopper. -- L.
Stop maligning grasshoppers. :)
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
Al Klein
<roym...@optusnet.com.au> posted in alt.atheism:
>"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1g0xuly.1hx6xro1cuhtcmN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> Evolution is fact.
>I would have thought it is a 'best fit' of the observed data and is helpful
>for those in the biological or earth sciences.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a breeding population
over time. It's been observed (billions of times), so it's as much a
fact as any other fact.
>> It also needs explanation. This is what theories do
>> in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>Yes. I tend to say that science seeks to deal with the when and how of our
>phenomenal world; whilst the Bible deals with relationships - the Who and
>why - how we relate to each other and to our Creator.
The bible deals with the relationships of the sheep herder (the top of
the religious hierarchy) to the sheep (everyone else) - and how best
to shear them.
>In my mind they are not in conflict.
Science deals with reality. Religion is in conflict with reality.
> But I'd rather not neglect the Who and why.
Making things up (religion) and "dealing with" things are totally
different.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
jabriol
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:39:08 GMT, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al hasn't proved that "man evolved".
>
> If you're not a clone of your parent, you've evolved.
>
so how many species we become from infant to adult?
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 09:50:25 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:h6knlvk2ffitf0jko...@Pern.rk...
> >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 11:16:58 GMT, "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org>
> >> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >still no evidence of "man evolved"
>
> >> Except for all the evidence.
>
> >what evidence?
>
> You're not a clone of your parent? You had TWO parents? Then you've
> evolved. (Not your definition of the word, science's definition.)
Should note here that clones also evolve...
>
> >> >"man evolved"does not pass the scientific method.
>
> >> Except for all the evidence.
>
> >what evidence?
>
> See above.
I spent a happy couple of hours last night reading Robert Carroll's
_Patterns and processes in vertebrate evolution_. Sure had a lot of
evidence...
>
> >but you still nor anyone else has explained why evolution does not pass the
> >scientific method.
>
> There's no such thing as "pass the scientific method". The words
> don't mean anything. That's why no one has explained it.
>
> >. we know nyou cant explain it.
>
> Just as you can't explain why yellow is smarter than loud.
>
> >> >... so evolution is based on faith.
>
> >> Yes, the faith that reality is real. And the tons of evidence that
> >> back up that faith.
>
> >what evidence?
>
> See above.
And see the talk.origins Evidences FAQ. It should get published.
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Roy Mock
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >In my mind they are not in conflict.
>
> Science deals with reality. Religion is in conflict with reality.
No. That does not make sense. The occupation and overthrow of Saddam's
regime had political and moral reasons than science.
There are realities beyond the phenomenal world. There are times we've been
hurt or we hurt others, people offend us and we offend others, we believe
our rights are violated and we deny others of their rights. Morals and
ethics form part of our reality. We all have a sense of what is right or
wrong. Science does not address moral issues.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ivaqlv8svh7ek32gd...@Pern.rk...
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:39:08 GMT, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Al hasn't proved that "man evolved".
>>
>> If you're not a clone of your parent, you've evolved.
>>
>uh... I guess a chil who grows evoles as well eh?
By jove, I think he's got it. But then...
>so how many species we become from infant to adult?
Nothing was mentioned about "species", which show that you know
nothing about evolution.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> OK, apparently I, too, can be a self-proclaimed spokesperson for the
>> masses of readers in a newsgroup.
>>
>> Therefore, "we" see that if the story of the creation is true as it is
>> presented in the bible, then all human beings are descendants of Adam
>> and Eve. (or more appropriately, Noah and his clan after the flood)
>> However, "we" know that this is NOT true, because if it were so, all
>> men throughout the world would share the same "Y" chromosome, and "we"
>> know that this is not the case.
>>
>> Wow! This spokesperson stuff is fun!
>>
>
>well.. there goes Mitochondrial Eve down the toilet eh??
Not at all. Read this.
Libertarius
John Hattan wrote:
> "jabriol" <jab...@sparta.org> wrote:
>
> >"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:zR_6b.19079$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
> >>
> >> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
> >> and Eve?
> >
> >yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve...
>
> Along with a Y-chromosome Adam who lived tens of thousands of years more
> recently than the Mitochondrial Eve.
>
> >how do you explain that?
>
> All humans sprang from a common group of people.
>
> How do you explain "Eve" being a few tens of thousands of years older
> than "Adam"?
===>One of my nephews married an older woman!
Libertarius
Al Klein wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:54:29 -0600, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Your abysmal ignorance smells to high heaven and the gods
> >are all holding their noses as they look down on you, seeing you
> >as a grasshopper. -- L.
>
> Stop maligning grasshoppers. :)
===>Just an allusion to Isaiah, who says people appear like grasshoppers
from atop the sky dome where YHWH is sitting.
(Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
("It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers..."
Isaiah 40:22)
John Wilkins
> Al Klein wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:54:29 -0600, Libertarius
> > <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Your abysmal ignorance smells to high heaven and the gods
> > >are all holding their noses as they look down on you, seeing you
> > >as a grasshopper. -- L.
> >
> > Stop maligning grasshoppers. :)
>
> ===>Just an allusion to Isaiah, who says people appear like grasshoppers
> from atop the sky dome where YHWH is sitting.
> (Isaiah 40:22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> ("It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers..."
> Isaiah 40:22)
>
Hey, if you use trigonometry and some assumptions about the apparent
size of grasshoppers to a Jewish prophet of, say, 5'6", you can
calculate the height of the sky dome! Anyone good enough to do the math?
I'm guessing it's much less than 1km high...
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g0xuly.1hx6xro1cuhtcmN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Al Klein" wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
> > > > "evolution".
> > >
> > > georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
> > >
> > > That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al.
> > >
> > > I though you guys all agreed "evolution" was a theory?
> > >
> > Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means
> > in science.
>
> Can you or someone with a science background explain scientific methodology?
>
> This is my current understanding: Scientific methodology tests the
> probability of any given proposition by validation.
No, nothing validates in the strict logical sense outside mathematics
(and sometimes, if it gets complex enough only computers can do the
calculations, not even then). This is what logical positivism foundered
on.
There is no single strict scientific methodology, but there are some
common features to science most of the time. It relies on measurement
and non-subjective data. It must be intersubjective - that is, the
phenomena must appear the same to all (trained, if needs be) observers.
Once phenomena have been observed and measured, they have to be
explained. This is done by a model, or what is in this sense a theory.
Theories work thus:
A model has a set of equations that describe how a system of a certain
kind will behave. A theory is a model plus "links" to actual things, so
that you can plug in the observations to the model, and make a
prediction or retrodiction (the time index is not important) as to how
that system will behave.
If it does, you are entitled to say provisionally that the model
explains the phenomenon, but you would typically have to see it working
in many cases before you could feel confident about that.
All models have limits, so the theory will run up against some
limitations. This is not a falsification of the model - that is very
hard to do despite what you might have heard from thoise with a passing
acquaintance with the philosophy of science. This is just learning about
the world...
Once you have all or most of the phenomena covered by a model, you have
explained the phenomena (and set up other things to explain in their
turn). Of course, this is simplified - the real world works a lot more
messily than this, but so far as I can tell, all science works this way
even if only in bits and pieces.
>
> > Evolution is fact.
>
> I would have thought it is a 'best fit' of the observed data and is helpful
> for those in the biological or earth sciences.
No, the *phenomena* are factual. That is, the adaptation of populations
is a fact. The change of species from one to another is a fact. The
change of organisms in the fossil record, becoming more like modern
organisms as the strata get younger, is a fact.
The *explanations* (that is, the models and theories) are not facts,
they are explanations. These explanations include: selection, genetic
drift, climatology, geology, ecology, and so forth. Taken together they
are the theory of evolution.
>
> > It also needs explanation. This is what theories do
> > in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>
> Yes. I tend to say that science seeks to deal with the when and how of
> our phenomenal world; whilst the Bible deals with relationships - the Who
> and why - how we relate to each other and to our Creator.
Assuming the existence of a Creator, which is a religious - not a
scientific - issue. But science certainly can deal with interpersonal
relationships - this involves psychology, ethology, neuroscience, and so
on.
>
> In my mind they are not in conflict. But I'd rather not neglect the Who
> and why.
There are a number of "why" questions in biology, and they get a bit
mixed up if you aren't careful:
They are:
Why does it happen? - causation, the proximate causes of something
Why does this individual? have it - development
Why do all these organisms have it? - the functional nature of the thing
Why did these organisms evolve it? - the historical aspect
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/old_anim
al_behavior/midterm.htm
The fifth, and traditional, why question is the one of theology - why
does it exist at all? and the answer is "because God made it so", which
in science answers absolutely nothing, or absolutely everything (there
is no middle ground for this).
georgann
>>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>>> "evolution".
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>>>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>> "John Wilkins" wrote:
>>> Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means in
>>> science. Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories
>>> do in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game you
>> people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of "man's"
>> evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that evolutionary
>> stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
"John Hattan" wrote:
> Problem is, you've already stated that you think all those old skulls are
> human-angel hybrids. To quote Thomas Paine, to try to argue with someone who
> has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
What an evasion, John! You're lying about what I may or may not have said
about "those old skulls" then to top it off you drag in a quote by someone
you think everyone thinks is smart in order to convince others that what he
said is what you would say. Pitiful.
Can't either of you come up with the proof that "man evolved"? A yes or no
will do fine.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
georgann
>>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>>> "evolution".
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>>>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>> "John Wilkins" wrote:
>>> Ah, another ignorant person who does not understand what "theory" means in
>>> science. Evolution is fact. It also needs explanation. This is what theories
>>> do in science, they explain phenomena. Learn to cope with it...
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game you
>> people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of "man's"
>> evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that evolutionary
>> stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
>> What pretzel logic is it that commands you people to look at some facts,
>> which may or may be part of evidence for such a theory, then cleverly talk
>> about the theory as it if contains nothing but facts? Particularly where it
>> applies to man?
>> It only *after* someone catches you and calls you on this blatantly dishonest
>> practice that you chant your little ditties about what theories are and are
>> not ... what evolution is and is not ... never giving an adequate reason for
>> your dishonest use of this phraseology.
"Libertarius" wrote:
> ===>How would YOU know what might constitute an HONEST use of phraseology? If
> you did, you would use it.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Evidently, I know what constitutes an honest use of phraseology more than
you, John W. or Al.
Not one of you people has yet been willing (or able) to validate the honesty
of the particular phrase in question - "man evolved".
georgann
>>>>> There is no "origin of man". Man evolved, he didn't pop out of an
>>>>> "evolution".
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>>> That sounds distinctly like a statement of fact, Al. I though you guys all
>>>> agreed "evolution" was a theory?
>> "Al Klein" wrote:
>>> The theories about evolution are theories, georgann. Evolution is the word
>>> used to describe an observed fact - that allele frequencies in breeding
>>> populations change over time.
>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>> Well, then you should have no trouble showing us the "observed facts" that,
>> as you to said, "man evolved". I'm sure there's a major science prize in it
>> for you if you can, Al.
"Libertarius" wrote:
> ===>WHAT A LIAR! Are you denying the existence of DNA EVIDENCE? How would you
> prove that an abandoned child discovered by you belonged to a certain family?
> How would you determine if a skeleton found was of a person of a certain age,
> gender and ethnic background?
> Your abysmal ignorance smells to high heaven and the gods are all holding
> their noses as they look down on you, seeing you as a grasshopper. -- L.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
God sees everyone as a grasshopper (Isaiah 40:22). But that's beside the
point.
Would YOU like to prove for us that "man evolved" using DNA evidence? I'm
sure there's a major science prize in it for you if you can, Lib.
John Hattan
No, the Paine quote wasn't to convince others that I'm right. The Paine
quote was to explain why there's no point in arguing with you.
>Can't either of you come up with the proof that "man evolved"? A yes or no
>will do fine.
Yes, and you can too. Next time you're in a museum, measure the size of
the ridge over your brow and your brain-pan and compare it to those old
skulls in the glass case.
georgann
>>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
>>> and Eve?
>> yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve... how do you explain that?
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
> Easy. The Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to have ever lived.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Not so easy, Ray.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the "first" of
anything. It says they were "created in the image of God, male and female".
"In His image" is not merely physical and it is only man's general ignorance
of the complexity of Genesis 1 and 2 that makes them assume that the Bible
says Adam and Eve were the first of the species.
Only God knows about the "image" of the man-like creatures living on the
earth before those He created in His image. I strongly suspect, however,
they are physically like all the pre-homo-sapiens you can name.
georgann
>>> Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
>>> you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
>>> "man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
>>> evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
>> Problem is, you've already stated that you think all those old skulls
>> are human-angel hybrids. To quote Thomas Paine, to try to argue with
>> someone who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the
>> dead.
"Libertarius" wrote:
> ===>But to become a good Paulinist, all you need to do is to become one of the
> MOROI DIA CHRISTON (=morons for Christos -- 1 Cor. 4:10) -- L.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
We're also told to be as "wise as serpents". That would actually make
believers wiser by far than you and your kind. Wiser because we know the one
truth you don't know and through that one truth all other information is
colored by truth. Without it, all other information is colored by lies.
georgann
>> Can't either of you come up with the proof that "man evolved"? A yes or no
>> will do fine.
"John Hattan" wrote:
> Yes, and you can too. Next time you're in a museum, measure the size of
> the ridge over your brow and your brain-pan and compare it to those old
> skulls in the glass case.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
And this proves "man evolved" how?
So far neither you nor scientists have come up with a viable plug for the
"missing link".
Do you think this is because you just can't get your damn hands on it yet
(but we *will* damn it, just you wait) or that it is beyond reach - because
God-did-it?
John Hattan
>>> Robyn wrote:
>
>>>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
>>>> and Eve?
>
>>> yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve... how do you explain that?
>
>"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
>
>> Easy. The Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to have ever lived.
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>Not so easy, Ray.
>
>Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the "first" of
>anything. It says they were "created in the image of God, male and female".
>"In His image" is not merely physical and it is only man's general ignorance
>of the complexity of Genesis 1 and 2 that makes them assume that the Bible
>says Adam and Eve were the first of the species.
>
>Only God knows about the "image" of the man-like creatures living on the
>earth before those He created in His image. I strongly suspect, however,
>they are physically like all the pre-homo-sapiens you can name.
Got anything to back this stuff up? After all, if you're demanding that
we back up our claims, you should be willing to do so yourself, right?
John Hattan
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>>>> Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
>>>> you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
>>>> "man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
>>>> evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
>
>>> Problem is, you've already stated that you think all those old skulls
>>> are human-angel hybrids. To quote Thomas Paine, to try to argue with
>>> someone who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the
>>> dead.
>
>"Libertarius" wrote:
>
>> ===>But to become a good Paulinist, all you need to do is to become one of the
>> MOROI DIA CHRISTON (=morons for Christos -- 1 Cor. 4:10) -- L.
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>We're also told to be as "wise as serpents". That would actually make
>believers wiser by far than you and your kind. Wiser because we know the one
>truth you don't know and through that one truth all other information is
>colored by truth. Without it, all other information is colored by lies.
Well, the human-built clock on my wall tells me that it's time for you
to go and sun yourself on a rock.
John Hattan
>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>>> Can't either of you come up with the proof that "man evolved"? A yes or no
>>> will do fine.
>
>"John Hattan" wrote:
>
>> Yes, and you can too. Next time you're in a museum, measure the size of
>> the ridge over your brow and your brain-pan and compare it to those old
>> skulls in the glass case.
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>And this proves "man evolved" how?
Think for a moment. Why are the brow ridges and brain pan sizes so
different then from the way they are now. How could things have changed?
>So far neither you nor scientists have come up with a viable plug for the
>"missing link".
Missing link? Is your bookshelf populated with biology textbooks from
the 1930's or something?
In the couple of years or so that you've been posting, I learned one
thing about you, and that is that every time you open your mouth about
evolution, you show off how little you know about it.
georgann
"Al Klein" wrote:
> If you're not a clone of your parent, you've evolved. Oh, you belong to a
> species in which 2 parents are required? Then you've definitely evolved.
> Your alleles are NOT those of your parents.
georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
Oh, I see. Its the "not clone" summary.
So this proves that "man evolved" from anything other than man already "man"
particularly male and female homo-sapiens, exactly how?
Elroy Willis
>>>> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>>>> Al's statement was that "man evolved". According to this little word game
>>>> you people play that means there is indeed some proof of the stages of
>>>> "man's" evolution and hard evidence of those stages ... not simply that
>>>> evolutionary stages exist somewhere within other life forms.
>>> Problem is, you've already stated that you think all those old skulls
>>> are human-angel hybrids. To quote Thomas Paine, to try to argue with
>>> someone who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the
>>> dead.
> "Libertarius" wrote:
>> ===>But to become a good Paulinist, all you need to do is to become one of the
>> MOROI DIA CHRISTON (=morons for Christos -- 1 Cor. 4:10) -- L.
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
> We're also told to be as "wise as serpents".
What's the wisest serpent you know of?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Robibnikoff
>
>>> Robyn wrote:
>
>>>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
>>>> and Eve?
>
>>> yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve... how do you explain that?
>
>"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
>
>> Easy. The Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to have ever lived.
>
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>Not so easy, Ray.
>
>Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the "first" of
>anything. It says they were "created in the image of God, male and female".
>"In His image" is not merely physical and it is only man's general ignorance
>of the complexity of Genesis 1 and 2 that makes them assume that the Bible
>says Adam and Eve were the first of the species.
Where does the bible state that they were NOT the first? Or is this a mere
assumption on your part?
>Only God knows about the "image" of the man-like creatures living on the
>earth before those He created in His image. I strongly suspect, however,
>they are physically like all the pre-homo-sapiens you can name.
What bullshit.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Robibnikoff
snippage
>georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
>
>What an evasion, John! You're lying about what I may or may not have said
>about "those old skulls" then to top it off you drag in a quote by someone
>you think everyone thinks is smart in order to convince others that what he
>said is what you would say. Pitiful.
>
>Can't either of you come up with the proof that "man evolved"? A yes or no
>will do fine.
Can you prove that your god created everything? - Oh, and please prove he exists
while you're at it.
A yes or no will do fine.
Robyn
Elroy Willis
>>> Robyn wrote:
>>>> Do you honestly believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam
>>>> and Eve?
>>> yet, scientist believe in the Mitochondrial Eve... how do you explain that?
> "Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
>> Easy. The Mitochondrial Eve was not the first woman to have ever lived.
> georgann, Teflon/Bulova apologist wrote:
> Not so easy, Ray.
> Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the "first" of
> anything. It says they were "created in the image of God, male and female".
> "In His image" is not merely physical and it is only man's general ignorance
> of the complexity of Genesis 1 and 2 that makes them assume that the Bible
> says Adam and Eve were the first of the species.
> Only God knows about the "image" of the man-like creatures living on the
> earth before those He created in His image. I strongly suspect, however,
> they are physically like all the pre-homo-sapiens you can name.
Look at that fundy shuffle! Go georgann, go!
Elroy Willis
> Would YOU like to prove for us that "man evolved" using DNA evidence? I'm
> sure there's a major science prize in it for you if you can, Lib.
The FACT that children aren't duplicates of their parents proves that
man evolves. Why would it have been different at some time in the
past?