Creationism theory
dlh
one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought to be
only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth was
much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born. Although
a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming weight of
the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a viable theory
and explained a great number of things.
My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it explain
genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil record?
I know a mouse comes from another mouse. Where can we find the recipe for
creating the original mouse from scratch?
D. Haas
J Forbes
Jim
Adam Marczyk
news:MPG.14f36f4d9...@news.netquick.net...
> The idea of evolution was proposed before Darwin. The problem was that no
> one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought to be
> only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
> mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth
was
> much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born. Although
> a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming weight of
> the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a viable
theory
> and explained a great number of things.
>
> My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
> created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
> observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it explain
> genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil record?
"God did it."
HTH.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
~Tina~
no one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought
to be only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth
was much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born.
(Tina)
Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
chance theory.
Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
(DHaas)
Although a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming
weight of the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a
viable theory and explained a great number of things.
(Tina)
Darwins Theory was backed by very influential, Wealthy, anti-God people.
Those same people along with the media, Blurring the essential
difference between, Darwins(Macro-evolution) and Science
Fact(Micro-evolution) iswhat convinced the world! Not Tangible Evidence!
It explained nothing.
(DHaas)
My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it
explain genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil
record?
I know a mouse comes from another mouse. Where can we find the
recipe for creating the original mouse from scratch?
D. Haas
(Tina)
The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
Now I have a question for you.
Before you even get to this so-called "mechanism," of Natural selection,
genetic mutation(which is also unproven), tell me what it was, in the
beginning, that turned non-living chemicals, dead chemicals, into a
self-replicating organism? What was it?
Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity)
*A "Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy).
Living things already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do
not.
Thanks for listening!
~Tina~
J Forbes
The "thing" you seek is something that's probably
unknowable...because it most likely happened *once*
in billions of billions of billions of possible
opportunities.
So, it is *not* repeatable.
Even so, the change from non-living to living
probably required very little change in chemical
structure. Getting from one simple self replicating
molecule to a thinking human being is relatively
easy to imagine, if you understand what 4 billion
years really means....and how evolution works.
You've read Dawkins, I presume?
Jim
ZenIsWhen
>(DHaas)
>The idea of evolution was proposed before Darwin. The problem was that
>no one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought
>to be only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
>mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth
>was much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born.
>
>(Tina)
>Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
>Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
>chance theory.
>Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
Random chance is not an evolutionary term; it is a catchword used by
creationists to lie about science!
Why aren't mutations good?
Why are "mutations" the only way for advancement?
>
>(DHaas)
>Although a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming
>weight of the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a
>viable theory and explained a great number of things.
>
>(Tina)
>Darwins Theory was backed by very influential, Wealthy, anti-God people.
Evidence?
>Those same people along with the media, Blurring the essential
>difference between, Darwins(Macro-evolution) and Science
>Fact(Micro-evolution) iswhat convinced the world! Not Tangible Evidence!
>It explained nothing.
The evidence is there.
That you prefer to reamain ignorant is your problem.
>
>(DHaas)
>My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
>created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
>observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it
>explain genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil
>record?
>I know a mouse comes from another mouse. =A0 Where can we find the
>recipe for creating the original mouse from scratch?
>D. Haas
>
>(Tina)
>The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
Evidence? (<< Question mark)
NONE !! (Double exclamation point!)
>Now I have a question for you.
>Before you even get to this so-called "mechanism," of Natural selection,
>genetic mutation(which is also unproven), tell me what it was, in the
>beginning, that turned non-living chemicals, dead chemicals, into a
>self-replicating organism? What was it?
Abiogenesis .. and then evolution!
Since you see no need to provide ANY evidence (as though any existed anyway)
to support your babbling "goddidit!" - there is no need that anyone explain,
in detail to you, how they worked!
>
>
>Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
>*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity)
Keeping in mind that you obviously are not a biological scientist, your claims
about "what is necessary" mean nothing!
BTW ... Keeping in mind everthing needs a program .. .who programmed god?
>*A "Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy).
>Living things already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do
>not.
>Thanks for listening!
>~Tina~
It would have been good for a laugh, had the same ignorance had been repeated
hundreds of times before!
Karl
empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
are regarded as the absolute facts of proof. (Do not examine your science
too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.) When science
does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
are. Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
own construct. Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions. There
are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory. Gravity may exist but we have
no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
"realistic" and "believable" than religion?
Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
Enjoy the journey....
J Forbes wrote in message <3A89AE8C...@primenet.com>...
dlh
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof. (Do not examine your science
> too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.) When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
> as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
> atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are. Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct. Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions. There
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory. Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
I am talking about what we do understand. Not what we don't. Scientific
theories must predict and stand the test of time. Religious dogma has no
test. Religion makes claims which can be tested. (except by dying) Science
does not deal with those things. If you are going to the moon I would tend
to rely on information acquired through the scientific method rather than
religion. The same goes for medicine and electronics. Questions about what
is gravity is something we simply don't know. If anyone ever figures it
out, however, I predict it won't be a religious leader. If you want to
call science a religion go ahead. It doesn't change anything. Science
works better than knowledge from authority.
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
We are neither wise nor fools. We are animals with brains and large
penises.
> Enjoy the journey....
The journey is all we have. The end is a bummer.
D. Haas
Philip G. Boys
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof.
er no, science never claims absolute proof - the whole point is that
*everythings* provisional and awaiting contradiction by new evidence
and hypothesis.
> (Do not examine your science too closely or you will find that it too
> explains nothing.)
you're confusing science with philosophy.
> When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
> as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
> atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are. Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct.
religion (ie truth from faith alone) makes no sense to me.
> Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions.
name one scientific belief or assumption that is "sacred" ie defined as
being immutable in the face of any possible contradicting evidence.
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory. Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
probably because if we relied on religion to generate technology we would still
be living in mud huts.
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
you certainly have.
phil.
wf...@ptd.net
>You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
>empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
>Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
>are regarded as the absolute facts of proof. (Do not examine your science
>too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.)
gee if it explains nothing, how did we come to have computers?
When science
>does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
>gods..."energy" and "force." ]
really? the objective world doesnt exist? sounds like creationists are
trying to destroy god in order to save him. now karl is even denying
god created ANYTHING at all...
These words have the same meaning in science
>as the concepts of belief and faith.
i have a voltmeter. i can measured voltage. i have a scale. i can
measure the effects of gravity.
where do you have a 'faith meter' or a 'god meter'?
We all know there is something out
>there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
>god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
>atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
>are.
ever hear of atoms? science tells us things are constructed of them,
and the forces within atoms cause chemistry. sounds like an
explanation to me.
Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
>own construct. Science is just another religion.
creationists are very, very limited in imagination and intelligence.
to them, EVERYTHING is religion. since they relgionize everything, the
term loses meaning, and religion simply doesnt exist. if basketweaving
and car racing are 'religion', then there is no way to tell what ISNT
religion.
this is how creationists argue. deny the existence of the world.
slaughter the language. make up terms as needed.
and that proves god exists.
If you study it deep
>enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions. There
>are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory.
there are no atoms??
uh..ok...
Gravity may exist but we have
>no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
>"realistic" and "believable" than religion?
because you're using your computer. when you can use god the same way,
let me know.
J Forbes
within their own construct....but I disagree that
they have equal value. Religion does not explain
anything to me...science does. We know that science
provides a good explanation of how things work,
because we can use science to make new things, and
predict how they will work. Religion has no usefull
predictive mechanism at all (aside from predicting
things which we have no way determining whether the
prediction came true, or predicting things that will
obviously come true). Science is very predictive.
The example of your computer is a good one! If
science worked like religion, there would be
absolutely no way to make something like a modern
computer...because science follows rules, and
religion follows whim.
Jim
leonardo dasso
I think it goes something like this: "Sa-zaaam!!"
regards
leo
leonardo dasso
Karl <ka...@news.kornet.net> wrote in message
news:96dbum$l56$1...@news1.kornet.net...
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof.
1. What do you mean by "absolute facts of proof"?
2. the word "paradigm" was coined in the 50s mainly by Kuhn and other to
describe a certain scientific model or hypothesis. There is no such thing as
a "religious paradigm".
>(Do not examine your science
> too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.) When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in
science
> as the concepts of belief and faith.
You are making a terrible mess with words here. Energy and force are
concepts that are mathematically expressable.
Belief and faith are -if you wish - the "methods of religion". You said that
in the first paragraph, now you are making a soup of it all. If you have no
idea what you are talking about, at least be consistent in your ignorance.
>We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand
of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life
force,
> atomic energy, etc...
Gravitational forces, electrical energy, etc can be measured. "Life force"
is an animistic remnant from the times we believed that the sun was a god,
and we danced to improve crops and make rain come. The hand of god, I've no
idea what it is.
>Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are.
Science measures things and provides workable models.
>Neither does religion.
Of course, that goes without saying. Religion doesnt aid at all in the
process of knowledge. Can you make a radio or a bicycle based on religious
knowledge? I think not.
>Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct.
Another soup of words. Each "paradigm makes sense within its own construct".
Why dont you get a dictionary and have a look at what these words mean
before throwing them around mindlessly?
>Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions.
Science is based on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws
that can be known and understood. So far, this assumption has proven to be
rather reasonable, dont you think?
On the other hand religion is based on faith. So far nobody has learned
anything from the use of faith, and in fact nobody has even been able to
show that we can ever learn anything from the use of faith.
>There
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory.
Your use of "theory" shows a deep ignorance of the way the term has been
used scientifically in the last 100 years.
>Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
>
Because it works -why else?
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
>
Never have these word resonated with more force than after your post...
regards
leo
Boikat
>
> Karl <ka...@news.kornet.net> wrote in message
> news:96dbum$l56$1...@news1.kornet.net...
> >Gravity may exist but we have
> > no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> > "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
> >
>
> Because it works -why else?
>
> > Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
> >
>
> Never have these word resonated with more force than after your post...
You don't suppose this is *the* karl, do you? You
know, karl-- "The problem is this Boikat, I'm 100%
right. God created the world in six days.
Sorry....And if you don't accept Jesus Christ and
ONLY Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you're
going to Hell. The End." [1] --crawford?
[1] 1999/02/10, karl crawford.
Maybe someone should check the rocks down by the
sewage pond and see if there's a big slime trail
coming out from under one of them?
Boikat
Thomas Scharle
is pretty much on the fritz, and I had to do a lot of this by
hand. BTW, if you are concerned that I get your response, please
e-mail.)
Karl (ka...@news.kornet.net) wrote:
You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
are regarded as the absolute facts of proof. (Do not examine your science
too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.) When science
does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
are. Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
own construct. Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions. There
are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory. Gravity may exist but we have
no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
"realistic" and "believable" than religion?
Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
Enjoy the journey....
[...snip...]
I believe that you have missed the point, the title of this
thread: "Creationism theory".
*After* someone proposes a "theory of creationism", *then* we
can discuss the issues that you bring up.
As things stand, though, I have *never* seen anybody describe
what "creationism" might be, whether or not it is religion or
science or whatever. Other, that is, than "Somebody got something
wrong about evolution", or "It's yucky to be related to monkeys".
But a negative is *not* a good definition.
To make it clear, though, I have seen definitions of *creation*.
But these definitions only serve to make it clear just how great a
difference there is between "belief in creation" and "creationism".
There are several possible reasons why nobody wants to describe
"creationism".
For example, they may be just satisfied with the "Yucky" answer.
Or, they may have found themselves in hot water when they get
somewhat explicit. "Hot water" like a belief in nature-gods or
denial of providence.
Or, well, I don't know. If you don't have an answer for "what
is the theory of creationism?" ... maybe you have an answer for
"why is there not theory of creationism?"
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Floyd
Karl wrote:
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence,
yes
> reductionism,
sometimes, in some of the sciences.
> and proof in the form of repeatability.
sometimes, in some of the sciences
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof.
true
> (Do not examine your science
> too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.)
false
> When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force."
No, scientists simply say "we don't know yet" if the phenomenon is natural, or
"we can not answer that" if the phenomenon is "supernatural."
> These words have the same meaning in science
> as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
> atomic energy, etc...
which of these can be measured or detected in some way with instruments that we
currently have? Which can not? If I touch two wires with a volt meter and it
reads zero, I can conclude that the two wires do not form a complete circuit.
If I designed a "Hand-of-God-ometer" and pointed it at something, and it showed
a zero reading, would that prove that God was not present? If not, in what way
is the presence or absence of God a phenomenon of equal standing with the
presence or absence of electrical current?
> Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are.
Not without intensive study, no.
> Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct.
true
> Science is just another religion.
false.
> If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions.
They are testable beliefs, however, and will be rejected if they fail to pass
the tests.
> There
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory.
Do you suppose the people of Hiroshima are comforted by this assertion? I
suspect not. The atomic bomb behaves as though atoms actually exist and
actually do what physicists say they do. So does your computer, for that
matter. Prayers for the defeat of one's enemies have proven less reliable as a
national defense strategy. Why?
> Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
Jump out of a plane with a parachute. Then jump out with just a prayer that you
will float. We "believe" science is more realistic than religion because (a) it
is based on the analysis and explanation of the physical world, rather than the
spiritual, and (b) it keeps working exactly like the scientists say it should.
>
>
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
I didn't want to say it, but since you brought it up, yeah, I can see your
point. -Floyd
~Tina~
creationists to lie about science!
(Tina)
First of all, do you have to be so rude and hateful? And second, Lie
about what?
(ZENIS)
Why aren't mutations good?
Why are "mutations" the only way for advancement?
(Tina)
Because mutations are almost always detrimental to the survival of a
gene pool.
Mutations are like changing one letter in a computer program. Bug!
Crash!
(Tina Previously)
Darwins Theory was backed by very influential, Wealthy, anti-God people.
(ZENIS)
Evidence?
(Tina)
Research?
(ZENIS)
The evidence is there.
That you prefer to reamain ignorant is your problem.
(Tina)
Really? Darwins dummy theory has Tangible, verifiable, evidence? More
like Dogmatic interpretations, Speculation unsubstantiated
"evidence,"etc...
OK, show me even one example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major
morphologic transition....
I wonder where you'll find the "testable Model," for this
uh.....evidence?
And, Hunt fails the test also!
(Tina Previously)
The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
(ZENIS)
Evidence? (<< Question mark)
NONE !! (Double exclamation point!)
(Tina)
Where is your evidence that the "promordial Soup," spontaneously became
a self-replicating organism? Hmmm?
NONE!!!
(ZENIS)
Abiogenesis .. and then evolution!
Since you see no need to provide ANY evidence (as though any existed
anyway) to support your babbling "goddidit!" - there is no need that
anyone explain, in detail to you, how they worked!
(Tina)
No, No, you must have misunderstood my question because I did not ask
you what the promordial soup was called (abiogenesis), I am quite aware
of of it's name. My question is(as if you didn't get it the first time),
What was it that JUMPED into the prebiotic soup, non-living chemicals,
Dead chemicals, and just made it "evolve," into a self-relicating
organism? I call him GOD! What do you call it?
(Tina Previously)
Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity)
(ZENIS)
Keeping in mind that you obviously are not a biological scientist, your
claims about "what is necessary" mean nothing!
BTW ... Keeping in mind everthing needs a program .. .who programmed
god?
(Tina)
These statements have nothing to do with me personally! These are
Proven, Scientific, documented Facts, that You cannot change!
God is outside of time and space as we know it! He has just always been!
(TinaPreviously)
*A "Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy). Living
things already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do not.
Thanks for listening!
~Tina~
(ZENIS)
It would have been good for a laugh, had the same ignorance had been
repeated hundreds of times before!
(Tina)
Ok, Thanks for your time!
~Tina~
~Tina~
The "thing" you seek is something that's probably unknowable...because
it most likely happened *once* in billions of billions of billions of
possible opportunities.
So, it is *not* repeatable.
(Tina)
Exactly, Unknowable= Faith based! just thought I'd throw that in for any
atheist that may be reading this. :-))
Of coarse I do not believe it just happened by chance, and I believe God
could do it as many times as he chose to do it.
(JForbes)
Even so, the change from non-living to living probably required very
little change in chemical structure.
(Tina)
Yea, God spake, and it was done! very little effort I would imagine.
I don't think however that the question is "how much" change was
required, but "what," caused the change.
Creationist call Him "God", evolutionist call it, "I dunno."
(JForbes)
Getting from one simple self replicating molecule to a thinking human
being is relatively easy to imagine, if you understand what 4 billion
years really means....and how evolution works.
You've read Dawkins, I presume?
Jim
(Tina)
The macromolecule-to-cell transition jump is fantastic to say the least!
Thanks for your time. Oh and No, I haven't read Dawkins.
~Tina~
Dave Oldridge
284.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
>(DHaas)
>The idea of evolution was proposed before Darwin. The problem was that
>no one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought
>to be only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
>mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth
>was much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born.
>
>(Tina)
>Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
>Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
>chance theory.
>Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
Nope....science is not really having that much trouble with this mechanism.
Anti-intellectuals are having more trouble with it, though and it causes them
to lie more than they usually do.
>(DHaas)
>Although a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming
>weight of the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a
>viable theory and explained a great number of things.
>
>(Tina)
>Darwins Theory was backed by very influential, Wealthy, anti-God people.
And fundamentalist loonies in the USA are backed by very influential, wealthy
and (arguably) anti-God people.
>Those same people along with the media, Blurring the essential
>difference between, Darwins(Macro-evolution) and Science
>Fact(Micro-evolution) iswhat convinced the world! Not Tangible Evidence!
>It explained nothing.
Well, damn it, this "essential difference" is VERY elusive. In fact I fail
to see what it exists at all except in the disordered minds of creationists.
I mean really, what force IS it that you imagine stops isolated populations
from diverging until they speciate? How are the earliest branchings in the
phylogenetic tree any different in degree from the speciations we observe
nowadays? I don't get it!
>(DHaas)
>My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
>created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
>observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it
>explain genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil
>record?
>I know a mouse comes from another mouse. Where can we find the
>recipe for creating the original mouse from scratch?
>D. Haas
>
>(Tina)
>The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
Yes, but unless you can tell us how to test this proposition scientifically,
it remains entirely a theological proposition. And even though we both
accept it in principle, you and eye seem to still have a great deal of
difference in our idea about what was done, when, and in what manner. You
seem to prefer the metaphor of some Bronze Age poet for a source of
information on the matter because someone told you that God dictated this
poem verbatim (God did not tell you this--some human did it), while I prefer
to examine the actual work of God, the creation itself, in order to answer
these questions.
>Now I have a question for you.
>Before you even get to this so-called "mechanism," of Natural selection,
>genetic mutation(which is also unproven), tell me what it was, in the
>beginning, that turned non-living chemicals, dead chemicals, into a
>self-replicating organism? What was it?
Some chemicals have this property. That is they catalyze the production of
copies of themselves or of their complement (which then catalyzes the
original). These come in molecules down to about 100 atoms in size. That is
not large as molecules go and is well within the range of random
polymerization of the organics we see all around us in the universe at large.
It takes only chemistry and physics to do this.
>Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
>*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity)
>*A "Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy).
>Living things already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do
>not.
The "program" is in the origin of the universe. It's just made that way. If
you need to blame someone for that, blame God. HE did it. But HE did it the
way HE did it, not the way your handlers are telling you He did.
Note that complexity is more or less built into the plan of nature. Take
water vapour. It's a gas with molecules of H2O whizzing around at random.
But cool it and introduce the smallest speck of dust or a salt crystal and
you will get a beautiful, symmetrical snowflake. But no special miracle is
required for this. It's just the way God made the universe.
And anyone who looks at biological systems from a mathematical viepoint
becomes quickly aware that non-linear differential equations play a major
role in any real description of the processes and events. I invite you to
look for a copy of Fractint (or Winfract) to investigate some of these
possibilities for yourself. The problem that fundamentalists are REALLY
having with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God but that it
reveals that they have barely managed to see His toenails, never mind the
rest of Him. And, for those Bronze Age herdsmen by and for whom Genesis was
written, that was all they could handle. But it's time to grow up!
>Thanks for listening!
>~Tina~
We hope you will do us the courtesy of reciprocating.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Pat James
(in message <96dbum$l56$1...@news1.kornet.net>):
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof. (Do not examine your science
> too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.) When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
> as the concepts of belief and faith. We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is. Is it the hand of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
> atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are. Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct. Science is just another religion. If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions. There
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory. Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is. Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
>
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
That you, Karl Crawford? How are the woodpeckers doing? And what are you
doing in _Korea_?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
John Wilkins
> Karl <ka...@news.kornet.net> wrote in message
> news:96dbum$l56$1...@news1.kornet.net...
> > You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> > empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> > Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> > are regarded as the absolute facts of proof.
>
> 1. What do you mean by "absolute facts of proof"?
> 2. the word "paradigm" was coined in the 50s mainly by Kuhn and other to
> describe a certain scientific model or hypothesis. There is no such thing as
> a "religious paradigm".
Minor nitpick: The word "paradigm" meant the model of a linguistic form,
such as "amo amas amat". The point of a paradigm in this pre-Kuhnian
sense was that it was a model or a type from which you could learn a
large number of things very quickly and then only have to learn the
exceptions. Kuhn's original use of paradigm covered some 20 distinct
senses but they all had this typological sense. However, it would make
sense to speak of, say, confessional catholic Christianity as being a
paradigm. However, I do agree that the notion that a religion is a
Weltanschauung (world view, belief system, etc) is false, literally
interpreted.
...
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
J Forbes
~Tina~ wrote:
>
> (Forbes)
> Hey, that's a good one!
> The "thing" you seek is something that's probably unknowable...because
> it most likely happened *once* in billions of billions of billions of
> possible opportunities.
> So, it is *not* repeatable.
>
> (Tina)
> Exactly, Unknowable= Faith based! just thought I'd throw that in for any
> atheist that may be reading this. :-))
> Of coarse I do not believe it just happened by chance, and I believe God
> could do it as many times as he chose to do it.
I doubt God does anything, since He is imaginary.
If you disagree, I'd be interested in ANY evidence
that ANY God exists ANYWHERE outside human
imagination!
> (JForbes)
> Even so, the change from non-living to living probably required very
> little change in chemical structure.
>
> (Tina)
> Yea, God spake, and it was done! very little effort I would imagine.
> I don't think however that the question is "how much" change was
> required, but "what," caused the change.
> Creationist call Him "God", evolutionist call it, "I dunno."
A person who understands the process of evolution
says "I dunno, but I have some ideas, and they can
be demonstrated, unlike God.
If you don't understand probability, and the numbers
involved for calculating the chance that a slight
change will occur a specific way, given a very large
number of opportunities, then you probably won't be
able to understand either abiogenesis or evolution.
If you want an idea of how it works, think of the
lottery...the odds of YOU winning are very low, but
the probability that SOMEONE will win is a sure
thing. That's a bad analogy of how probability
relates to abiogenesis, but it's a start. It
appears to me that you haven't bother thinking about
it much.
> (JForbes)
> Getting from one simple self replicating molecule to a thinking human
> being is relatively easy to imagine, if you understand what 4 billion
> years really means....and how evolution works.
> You've read Dawkins, I presume?
> Jim
>
> (Tina)
> The macromolecule-to-cell transition jump is fantastic to say the least!
Actually, it's not a jump at all. It's just a lot
of very slight changes. And, natural selection
means that only the beneficial changes will survive,
so the process is pretty much inevitible.
> Thanks for your time.
You're welcome!
>Oh and No, I haven't read Dawkins.
You ought to, if you can read it with an open mind.
You might learn something. You'd be fair, also, as
I've read Genesis in the Bible. Now it's your turn!
> ~Tina~
>
Zachary Strider McGregor-Dorsey
A lot of people attacked this email, and while I disagree with parts, I think
some the attacks were not particularly valid.
Karl wrote:
> You have confused your paradigms. The scientific paradigm requires
> empirical evidence, reductionism, and proof in the form of repeatability.
> Religiosity requires only belief and faith. Within their paradigms, both
> are regarded as the absolute facts of proof.
Here, Leo objected to the use of the word "paradigm." He is correct in stating
that the word was coined to denote a framework within a scientific discipline,
however it has since entered the mass's vocabulary in a more general sense.
While Karl was not being as particularly precise as his tone tends to convey, I
would not say he is wrong to use "paradigm." Now, the word can be used to
described a framework for just about anything of a theoretical nature. Or
perhaps, archetype would be a better word for it. These two meanings have been
combined to some degree, albeit largely because of the ignorance of the users.
Yet the meaning has changed since its introduction, so it does not seem in
particularly poor taste to use it to describe the framework of a religious
theory, as wrought with contradictions and inconsistencies as that theory might
be.
Besides, we knew what he meant.
> (Do not examine your science
> too closely or you will find that it too explains nothing.)
If you go way out on a limb, he isn't exactly wrong here. I took the statement
to mean that science explains nothing in an absolute sense. It's the whole, "Is
that which is perceived by our senses really real?" thing. I guess science
always explains that which we think we are seeing, but it really doesn't say
anything outside of us. Again, I'm going out on a limb here.
> When science
> does not know the answers to life's questions, it simply points to its'
> gods..."energy" and "force." These words have the same meaning in science
> as the concepts of belief and faith.
Now, I try to defend this guy, and then he writes something like this. Does
this even make sense to you? I can't say it is wrong, because I can't even
establish enough of a relation there to test it. If I said, "A triangle is
analogous to a train," you couldn't really refute me there, could you? I'm
thinking he just had a small seizure or something. Hey, it can happen to any of
us.
> We all know there is something out
> there but we just can't figure out exactly what 'it' is.
Now this hurts our argument for science not telling us anything, Karl. If we
know something is out there, then our senses would be giving us some consistent
data on that something, right? If they didn't, then what's the difference
between something being out there and something not being out there? So science
does explain something. Or is what it explains not deep enough for us to
consider it an explanation. Hmmm, I'm patching the holes as quick as I can, but
I suggest you get a bucket.
> Is it the hand of
> god or electrical force, gravitational force, electrical energy, life force,
> atomic energy, etc... Science does nothing to tell us what these things
> are.
(Assuming these things ARE something at all. Remember Karl, our crutch is
nothingness.)
> Neither does religion. Still, each paradigm makes sense within its
> own construct. Science is just another religion.
Errrrrrrrt. Every man for himself! She's going down!
Ok, the first part of the paragraph says, "You have confused your paradigms.
The scientific paradigm requires....
Religiosity requires..." So there you separate the two. They have different
paradigms, for God's sake! Different paradigms are like different, uh,
different--I don't know, but something really big! And different! But now
Science is another religion, so it's paradigm must be a subset of religiosity,
right? Ah ha! So that's why energy=belief and force=faith. I see it now. But
is energy and force really the science paradigm? Let's see if we can steer the
argument that way. For the time being, though, I'm not seeing any lifeboats.
(Tell me, really, did you just match force with faith because they begin with
the same letter? Come on, I know you did.)
> If you study it deep
> enough you will see that it to is based on beliefs and assumptions.
Ok, what are the beliefs and assumptions of science?
1) The world is real.
2) Our senses (and devices that aid our senses) are sensing real stuff.
3) There is some underlying structure to it all.
I got it!
In one grand swoop, I intend to fix Karl's argument.
See, we can combine 1 and 2, as you can't sense real stuff unless there is real
stuff to sense. So now, let this 1-2 combo be "energy," and let 3 be "force."
Oila!
So there you go. What in God's good name are all you pinko atheistic
evolutionists complaining about? Take that, other Karl!
(Other Karl? Think commie.)
Just for fun, let's see what extraneous information our Karl gave us.
> There
> are no atoms, that's why we call it a theory.
Let's rip off "theorem" from the mathematicians. That might help with the
creationists' confusion between the common and the scientific meaning of
"theory.". I figure no one will care except the mathematicians. They'll be
majorly pissed off. But what are they going to do? Find a new differential
structure on our ass? Open a can of p-adics? Yeah, right. They're so hopped
up on coffee, they'll forget by tomorrow anyhow.
> Gravity may exist but we have
> no idea what exactly it is.
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Gravity makes stuff go down.
That's pretty exact. Correct? Who cares? It's exact.
> Why do we believe science to be more
> "realistic" and "believable" than religion?
We think science is more "realistic" because of the Nazis. The Nazis killed a
bunch of people and planned to kill a bunch more. We happened to know a few of
these people, so first we said, "Hey God, tell the Nazis to stop killing
people." More people died. So we said, "Come on God, this really sucks. We
need these people around so they can build us stuff." A bunch more people
died. As we would later find out, God, at the time, was distracted by the blond
in the second row. So we turned to science and said, "Science, can you blow
these Nazis to smithereens?" Science told us to hold on for sec and then did
some weird stuff behind his back. It ended up taking too long, so we rummaged
through Science's closet and found all these cool gadgets that could be used to
kill Nazis. We went off and killed Nazis, leaving Science to still fiddle with
that weird thing behind his back. So we came back to Science's house and said,
"Science, thanks for all you stuff. We kicked the hell out of those Nazis."
But Science said, "Hey, while you were gone, I made this really cool Nazi
killer. Check it out. Maybe you can find some other use for it." Well, we
just had to try out the new toy, and there was this population of short people
to the west of us that was really annoying. So we Nazi killered them. And
whoa, it worked big time. Science came through, albeit a little late.
After all that, we realized hey, if we had that Nazi killer earlier, we would
have really, really kicked the hell out of those damn Nazis. So from then one,
we decided to talk to Science a lot so we can give him fair warning next time.
We left God to the blond.
So, as you can see, all of science, including evolution, is Hitler's fault. Is
there anything this man didn't do wrong?
Oh, and this all addresses your earlier problem with atoms.
As for "believable," who says science is more believable? No good scientist,
that's for sure. I mean, our best measurement for what has highest
believability is simply how many people believe what. In the U.S., something
like 80% of the population believe in God. I bet there's another survey out
there that says more than 20% of the population are idiots. Thus, religion
wins.
(Hey ma, that was a sufficiently confusing argument. Can I be a creationist
now, can I?)
> Professing ourselves to be wise, we prove that we are fools.
Professing ourselves to be energy, we prove that we are beliefs.
> Enjoy the journey....
Man, I'm not going to waste my time enjoying things. I've theorems to prove,
games to play, messages to write to alt.talk.creationsim. No time to waste
enjoying it.
Hugs and kisses,
Zach
Morat
I've always wanted to me someone famous. I suppose Karl counts...He was
hanging around the "No Answers in Genesis" board for awhile, I heard.
> Boikat
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is tied to the deepest feelings people have. The love
that arises from that stewing pot is the sweetest and strongest, but
the hate is the hottest, and the anger is the most violent."
-- Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eros
You probably will not be surprised when I tell you that Cretinist "great",
the Rev. Dr. Duane Gish has already covered his ass on this very point. Some
years ago he ranted, with typically dismissive YEC rhetoric;-
"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for he used
processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This
is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by
scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the
Creator."
(Duane Gish, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" as quoted in "Origins" by
Professor Robert Shapiro pp. 262-263)
Professor Shapiro also said;-
"The claim that the universe, the earth, and life were made by an
undetectable Creator using supernatural powers falls outside of science. It
makes no predictions that can be tested. It cannot be negated by science. If
it had any real possibility of negation, it would lose many of the
advantages that it offers to its adherents. It is mythology serving to
buttress a religion." (Professor Robert Shapiro, "Origins" pp. 262-263)
No rational person could disagree with that.
EROS.
Ken Cox
> Karl wrote (in message <96dbum$l56$1...@news1.kornet.net>):
> That you, Karl Crawford? How are the woodpeckers doing? And what are you
> doing in _Korea_?
He may not physically be in Korea. This might just mean
that he has been kicked off every ISP in North America.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Oldridge
>(DHaas)
>The idea of evolution was proposed before Darwin. The problem was that
>no one could figure out a mechanism. In addition, the earth was thought
>to be only a few thousand years in age. Darwin (and others) hit upon the
>mechanism of natural selection and using new information that the earth
>was much older than previously thought, evolutionary theory was born.
>
>(Tina)
>Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
>Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
>chance theory.
>Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
Nope....science is not really having that much trouble with this mechanism.
Anti-intellectuals are having more trouble with it, though and it causes
them to lie more than they usually do.
>(DHaas)
>Although a battle for acceptance went on for many years the overwhelming
>weight of the evidence convinced most of the world that evolution was a
>viable theory and explained a great number of things.
>
>(Tina)
>Darwins Theory was backed by very influential, Wealthy, anti-God people.
And fundamentalist loonies in the USA are backed by very influential,
wealthy and (arguably) anti-God people.
>Those same people along with the media, Blurring the essential
>difference between, Darwins(Macro-evolution) and Science
>Fact(Micro-evolution) iswhat convinced the world! Not Tangible Evidence!
>It explained nothing.
Well, damn it, this "essential difference" is VERY elusive. In fact I fail
to see that it exists at all except in the disordered minds of
creationists. I mean really, what force IS it that you imagine stops
isolated populations from diverging until they speciate? How are the
earliest branchings in the phylogenetic tree any different in degree from
the speciations we observe nowadays? I don't get it!
>(DHaas)
>My question is: What is the mechanism for creation? If organisms were
>created in finished form from dirt or whatever, how was this done? What
>observations indicate that this actually happened and how does it
>explain genetic relationships, geographic distribution and the fossil
>record?
>I know a mouse comes from another mouse. Where can we find the
>recipe for creating the original mouse from scratch?
>D. Haas
>
>(Tina)
>The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
Yes, but unless you can tell us how to test this proposition
scientifically, it remains entirely a theological proposition. And even
though we both accept it in principle, you and I seem to still have a
great deal of difference in our idea about what was done, when, and in what
manner. You seem to prefer the metaphor of some Bronze Age poet for a
source of information on the matter because someone told you that God
dictated this poem verbatim (God did not tell you this--some human did it),
while I prefer to examine the actual work of God, the creation itself, in
order to answer these questions.
>Now I have a question for you.
>Before you even get to this so-called "mechanism," of Natural selection,
>genetic mutation(which is also unproven), tell me what it was, in the
>beginning, that turned non-living chemicals, dead chemicals, into a
>self-replicating organism? What was it?
Some chemicals have this property. That is they catalyze the production of
copies of themselves or of their complement (which then catalyzes the
original). These come in molecules down to about 100 atoms in size. That
is not large as molecules go and is well within the range of random
polymerization of the organics we see all around us in the universe at
large.
It takes only chemistry and physics to do this.
>Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
>*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity)
>*A "Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy).
>Living things already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do
>not.
The "program" is in the origin of the universe. It's just made that way.
If you need to blame someone for that, blame God. HE did it. But HE did
it the way HE did it, not the way your handlers are telling you He did.
Note that complexity is more or less built into the plan of nature. Take
water vapour. It's a gas with molecules of H2O whizzing around at random.
But cool it and introduce the smallest speck of dust or a salt crystal and
you will get a beautiful, symmetrical snowflake. No special miracle is
leonardo dasso
~Tina~ <ChatB...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:11506-3A89C8DE-(Tina)
The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
[snip]
~Tina~
I always say, these creationists are so much more clever, they have the
answer and we dont see it! All the money, time, effort, we could save using
their method. Goddidditttt! All that applying for grants, running
experiments, going everyday to the lab, pipetting thousands of samples,
looking down the microscope in the dark, spending hours and hours in the
lab! And all that thinking!! Yes, thinking! They've done away with it too,
they are happy and contented. It's much easier and cheaper to conclude that
godddidddittttt!!!
Tina, I take my hat off to you. You must be really a happy person. For some
reason I cant turn my brain off like you've done, actually it freaks me out
just to think about it, but I imagine once you get there it must be great.
regards
leo
~Tina~
Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
chance theory.
Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
(DAVE)
Nope....science is not really having that much trouble with this
mechanism. Anti-intellectuals are having more trouble with it, though
and it causes
them to lie more than they usually do.
(Tina)
SOooo, I guess this means that you are not gonna explain these Essential
factors to us poor ignorant, uneducated, God Loving people, AND, Prove
Darwins theory also!!! WOW, too bad! You could have killed two birds
with one stone!
BTW...I do Not Lie. I Hate Lies.
(DAVE)
Well, damn it, this "essential difference" is VERY elusive. In fact I
fail to see that it exists at all except in the disordered minds of
creationists. I mean really, what force IS it that you imagine stops
isolated populations from diverging until they speciate? How are the
earliest branchings in the phylogenetic tree any different in degree
from the speciations we observe nowadays? I don't get it!
(Tina)
Huh? LMBO!!! What? You fail to see it exist at all? THANK YOU, for
admitting that. Thats what we Creationist(not young earth) advocates
have been saying for years!!! It could NOT exist that way, you are
absolutely right! It had to be done by design! God!
Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
(Tina prev.)
The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
(DAVE)
Yes, but unless you can tell us how to test this proposition
scientifically, it remains entirely a theological proposition. And even
though we both accept it in principle, you and I seem to still have a
great deal of difference in our idea about what was done, when, and in
what manner.
(Tina)
Oh, but hold on here a minute! Lets get somethng REestablished. The
orgin of our universe from either a creationist or an evolutonist point
of view, is beyond the scientific testable hypothesis! UNknowable!=
Supernatural= Faith!
WE, my friend, are in the same boat on that one. LOL... Unless you
happened to have run across a real tablesize "Earth," with Billions of
years on it, that scientist could test?
Now unless you can "prove," how our universe began, and that it indeed
happened the way evolutionist say that it did, then don't get so ahead
of yourself, by mistakingly thinking that you are, "one up on us." :-))
(DAVE)
You seem to prefer the metaphor of some Bronze Age poet for a source of
information on the matter because someone told you that God dictated
this poem verbatim (God did not tell you this--some human did it), while
I prefer to examine the actual work of God, the creation itself, in
order to answer these questions.
(Tina)
Your ASSumption of what I prefer as evidence of God is silly to say the
least!
I base my beliefs on personal experience, empirical evidence, with 20
million more Christians backing that evidence up.
You know? I do not understand why you non-believers/evolutionist, THINK,
that you all have the market on Science!
I believe in science! Most of the helpful things we utilize every day,
were discovered by Scientist who were Christians!
What has a evolution scientist EVER contributed to society, for the Good
of Man? NOTHING! Communism, Racism, etc.. Got any Nobel Prize winning
evolution scientist? Nope!
(DAVE)
Some chemicals have this property.
(Tina)
What? ROFLMBO!!! What dead chemical can just "evolve," into a
self-replicating organism????????? Boy, I have heard it all now! Give me
even ONE! LMBO!
If i wasn't two years clean and sober, I would take a drink on that one!
LOL
(DAVE)
That is they catalyze the production of copies of themselves or of their
complement (which then catalyzes the original). These come in molecules
down to about 100 atoms in size. That is not large as molecules go and
is well within the range of random polymerization of the organics we see
all around us in the universe at large.
It takes only chemistry and physics to do this.
(Tina)
Yea, and it also takes nothing less than a labotomy to swallow it!.....
LOL
There is absolutely NO scientist that have EVER, documented, dead,
non-living chemicals evolving into a self-replicating organism! Never!
LOL
(Tina prev.))
Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity) *A
"Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy). Living things
already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do not.
(DAVE)
The "program" is in the origin of the universe. It's just made that way.
If you need to blame someone for that, blame God. HE did it. But HE did
it the way HE did it, not the way your handlers are telling you He did.
(Tina)
BUT, ONLY in Living things!
The "Program," Dave is already in
"Living systems," Not Dead Chemicals as in the beginning after the big
Bang, then comes the promordial Soup(dead chemicals). Then Poof,
spontaneously, out comes a self-replicating organism???
I do not think so.....and just saying, "its just made that way," won't
cut it, because we know that Life does not spring from non-life
without......"Something," causing it....I call him God, what do you call
it?
What is the mechanism Dave?
(DAVE)
Note that complexity is more or less built into the plan of nature. Take
water vapour. It's a gas with molecules of H2O whizzing around at
random. But cool it and introduce the smallest speck of dust or a salt
crystal and you will get a beautiful, symmetrical snowflake. No special
miracle is required for this. It's just the way God made the universe.
(Tina)
You are confusing the difference between, "Simple Order," and "Organized
Complexity."
Order from disorder is common in NON-living systems, ie..Sand dunes,
Tornados, lightning, grated river beds, etc...but where as ordered
systems is according to simple algorithms and therefore LACK complexity,
"Organized Living systems," have to be assembled, element by element
according to a program(info), higher and higher into more organized
complexity.
Snowflakes are exceedingly trivial, when compared to the required
increase in "information, organization and complexity," utilized in
Living systems!
The second reason that you cannot use a "Snowflake," as that of proof,
that life can create itself is the fact that, even though they can serve
to prove passive "order," by their very structure they are both enabled
and limited by the molecules of which they are comprised.
So, Thats a bust!
(DAVE)
And anyone who looks at biological systems from a mathematical viepoint
becomes quickly aware that non-linear differential equations play a
major role in any real description of the processes and events. I invite
you to look for a copy of Fractint (or Winfract) to investigate some of
these possibilities for yourself. The problem that fundamentalists are
REALLY having with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God
but that it reveals that they have barely managed to see His toenails,
never mind the rest of Him. And, for those Bronze Age herdsmen by and
for whom Genesis was written, that was all they could handle. But it's
time to grow up!
(DAVE)
We hope you will do us the courtesy of reciprocating.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
(Tina)
Thank You for your response. Have a good one! :-)
By the way, do you believe in God?
Dave Oldridge
288.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
>(Tina Previously)
>Hi Haas! Nice to meet you!
>Evolutionist's are still having trouble with this "Mechanism." random
>chance theory.
>Mutations are not very good for advancement either.
>
>(DAVE)
>Nope....science is not really having that much trouble with this
>mechanism. Anti-intellectuals are having more trouble with it, though
>and it causes
>them to lie more than they usually do.
>
>(Tina)
>SOooo, I guess this means that you are not gonna explain these Essential
>factors to us poor ignorant, uneducated, God Loving people, AND, Prove
>Darwins theory also!!! WOW, too bad! You could have killed two birds
>with one stone!
>BTW...I do Not Lie. I Hate Lies.
We keep hearing this protest from loud creationists, but coming, as it does,
between statements that are diametrically false to fact, it is not
confidence-inducing.
>(DAVE)
>Well, damn it, this "essential difference" is VERY elusive. In fact I
>fail to see that it exists at all except in the disordered minds of
>creationists. I mean really, what force IS it that you imagine stops
>isolated populations from diverging until they speciate? How are the
>earliest branchings in the phylogenetic tree any different in degree
>from the speciations we observe nowadays? I don't get it!
>
>(Tina)
>Huh? LMBO!!! What? You fail to see it exist at all? THANK YOU, for
Yes, where is your evidence for this imaginary force you claim prevents
populations from diverging genetically for as long as they exist (once
speciation has occured)?
>admitting that. Thats what we Creationist(not young earth) advocates
>have been saying for years!!! It could NOT exist that way, you are
You clearly did not understand my question. It is YOU who are claiming that
there are limits to the accumulation of genetic differences. Please state
the observed mechanism that enforces these alleged limits.
>absolutely right! It had to be done by design! God!
That's a theological argument. I happen to agree with you that the universe
was created by God. What I do not agree with is your claim that certain
theoretical events are impossible because of some claimed limitation on
genetic diversification that you cannot document in any fashion at all.
>Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
>self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
Science does not know any such thing for a fact. We see non-living materials
turning into living all around us. For example, I eat food, most of which is
dead (alfalfa sprouts are one notable exception) when I eat it and ALL of
which is dead by the time I absorb it. Yet my body is able to turn that dead
stuff into living cells. How? Chemistry, that's how! Now, to be sure, that
chemistry is very complex, but it is still chemistry and obeys the laws of
chemistry. There is no "mysterious vital force" there. Just atoms,
interacting with other atoms via the electromagnetic force.
>(Tina prev.)
>The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
>(DAVE)
>Yes, but unless you can tell us how to test this proposition
>scientifically, it remains entirely a theological proposition. And even
>though we both accept it in principle, you and I seem to still have a
>great deal of difference in our idea about what was done, when, and in
>what manner.
>
>(Tina)
>Oh, but hold on here a minute! Lets get somethng REestablished. The
>orgin of our universe from either a creationist or an evolutonist point
>of view, is beyond the scientific testable hypothesis! UNknowable!=
>Supernatural= Faith!
Yes, but a few picoseconds AFTER the origin and we are in the physics game
big-time! In fact, I would put the boundary there at Planck interval 1.
Planck interval 0 is not accessible to us and there is no Planck interval <
0.
>WE, my friend, are in the same boat on that one. LOL... Unless you
>happened to have run across a real tablesize "Earth," with Billions of
>years on it, that scientist could test?
Whoa.....just because something happened in the past does not mean that it
cannot be observed. Past events leave their traces in the present. Some of
them more directly interpretable than others, to be sure, but all of them
here in the here and now.
>Now unless you can "prove," how our universe began, and that it indeed
>happened the way evolutionist say that it did, then don't get so ahead
>of yourself, by mistakingly thinking that you are, "one up on us." :-))
Well, a great deal of that long time interval is actually visible in a good
telescope. The Hubble and some of the new big instruments that are just
online in the past decade or so have really added a lot to our knowledge of
the universe at large in deep time. You see, the further we look out, the
further back in time we are seeing, too.
>(DAVE)
>You seem to prefer the metaphor of some Bronze Age poet for a source of
>information on the matter because someone told you that God dictated
>this poem verbatim (God did not tell you this--some human did it), while
>I prefer to examine the actual work of God, the creation itself, in
>order to answer these questions.
>
>(Tina)
>Your ASSumption of what I prefer as evidence of God is silly to say the
>least!
Well, you certainly seemed to be favoring that interpretation.
>I base my beliefs on personal experience, empirical evidence, with 20
>million more Christians backing that evidence up.
There are only 20 million in your sect?
>You know? I do not understand why you non-believers/evolutionist, THINK,
>that you all have the market on Science!
Nobody has a monopoly on science. But you have to DO science for it to be
recognized as such. If you write amphigory and CALL it science, you cannot
expect the people who understand such things not to see the amphigory for
what it is.
>I believe in science! Most of the helpful things we utilize every day,
>were discovered by Scientist who were Christians!
And a great many of the scientists who investigate evolution are Christians,
too, despite the fact that some denominations make it very difficult for them
to remain Christians and retain any kind of professional or spiritual
integrity. There is something wrong with this picture and what is wrong with
it is that some of these denominations are teaching a heresy.
>What has a evolution scientist EVER contributed to society, for the Good
>of Man? NOTHING! Communism, Racism, etc.. Got any Nobel Prize winning
>evolution scientist? Nope!
This is what I mean by false witness. In point of fact, Asia's population is
largely kept alive by scientists who are busy FORCING the evolution of the
rice crop seeds in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of pests in
what has become an evolutionary arms race. If we don't
>
>(DAVE)
>Some chemicals have this property.
>
>(Tina)
>What? ROFLMBO!!! What dead chemical can just "evolve," into a
>self-replicating organism????????? Boy, I have heard it all now! Give me
>even ONE! LMBO!
I just punched the following command into Google and got over 5000 hits:
self-replicating AND (molecule OR molecules)
Don't you people EVER research anything before you shoot off your mouths?
>If i wasn't two years clean and sober, I would take a drink on that one!
>LOL
So you are a recovering alcoholic and your religion helped? I am a (by now--
20 years later) cured tobacco addict and God was certainly a help there. You
seem to have fallen for the notion that science must be wrong because it
isn't theology. Only people who are bad at both science and theology
actually teach that.
>(DAVE)
>That is they catalyze the production of copies of themselves or of their
>complement (which then catalyzes the original). These come in molecules
>down to about 100 atoms in size. That is not large as molecules go and
>is well within the range of random polymerization of the organics we see
>all around us in the universe at large.
>It takes only chemistry and physics to do this.
>
>(Tina)
>Yea, and it also takes nothing less than a labotomy to swallow it!.....
>LOL
In other words, your refutation consists of "I don't believe you." That's
not an argument, just a statement about the state of your mind. WHY don't
you believe me? Why not look up the hundreds of articles on the subject?
It's an interesting one and crucial to many areas of our understanding of
biological life. Whether we will ever know the exact pathway by which the
first non-living material began to self-replicate or not, I cannot say.
Molecules, especially organics, leave few fossils. But it seems to me that
Christianity and science are agreed on this. That is to say there was a time
when there was no life on the earth and this is followed by a time when there
was living matter on the earth. And that living matter came from the non-
living matter. You are suggesting that scientists should step out of their
discipline and utter theological opinions about why and who.
>There is absolutely NO scientist that have EVER, documented, dead,
>non-living chemicals evolving into a self-replicating organism! Never!
>LOL
I never said there was. There ARE, however, scientists who have documented
self-replicating molecules in the 200-atom range that, in the proper
environment, not only replicated themselves but also mutated and produced
better-reproducing molecules as a result. THAT is a fact.
>(Tina prev.))
>Keeping in mind that ANY increase in complexity invariably requires a
>*"Program,"(info for directing the growth in organized complexity) *A
>"Mechanism,"(for storing and converting incoming energy). Living things
>already have these two essential things, Dead-chemicals do not.
>
>(DAVE)
>The "program" is in the origin of the universe. It's just made that way.
>If you need to blame someone for that, blame God. HE did it. But HE did
>it the way HE did it, not the way your handlers are telling you He did.
>
>(Tina)
>BUT, ONLY in Living things!
Nope....there is no really good way to divide living matter from non-living.
A carbon atom is a carbon atom, no matter where you stick it.
>The "Program," Dave is already in
>"Living systems," Not Dead Chemicals as in the beginning after the big
>Bang, then comes the promordial Soup(dead chemicals). Then Poof,
>spontaneously, out comes a self-replicating organism???
>I do not think so.....and just saying, "its just made that way," won't
>cut it, because we know that Life does not spring from non-life
>without......"Something," causing it....I call him God, what do you call
>it?
We don't "know" any such thing. We know that life is chemistry. That is its
functions and reproductive processes are chemical in nature and obey the laws
of chemistry (that is atoms interact only in certain ways laid down by the
electroweak force). Nobody has ever proved that there is a shred of evidence
for any vitalist mysterious "essence of life."
>What is the mechanism Dave?
The electroweak force. It forms in the first nanoseconds of creation and is
definitely present as soon as electrical charge is. That is very early in
creation.
>
>(DAVE)
>Note that complexity is more or less built into the plan of nature. Take
>water vapour. It's a gas with molecules of H2O whizzing around at
>random. But cool it and introduce the smallest speck of dust or a salt
>crystal and you will get a beautiful, symmetrical snowflake. No special
>miracle is required for this. It's just the way God made the universe.
>
>(Tina)
>You are confusing the difference between, "Simple Order," and "Organized
>Complexity."
Not at all. Evolution simply pours itself into the niches in the environent.
This LOOKS purposive, but it is not evolution that has the purpose. It is
evolution's MAKER who has the purpose. This is an important theological
distinction. Moreover, we cannot actually rule out ongoing intervention in
the processes. All we can do is state that WE don't see any evidence of it.
The feeling I get is that this is a feature and not a bug.
>Order from disorder is common in NON-living systems, ie..Sand dunes,
>Tornados, lightning, grated river beds, etc...but where as ordered
>systems is according to simple algorithms and therefore LACK complexity,
Go look at the Mandelbrodt set. Reall LOOK at a good graphical
representation of it. Dig into it by magnifying parts of it several billion
times. You will see that, although formed from the simplest of mathematical
equations, this figure is enormously complex. Indeed, it can be
mathematically proven that it is a finite area bounded by an infinitely long,
INFINITELY complex line! Now, I ask you, what is the probability of finding
something of a particular level of complexity in an infinitely complex
object?
>"Organized Living systems," have to be assembled, element by element
>according to a program(info), higher and higher into more organized
>complexity.
Certainly this is the rule for complex, cellular organisms, which are the
basis of the living systems we see today. But there is nothing written in
stone that says these did not arise from simpler ones. Indeed, prokaryotes
would seem to represent a level of simplicity that precedes the present
eukaryote-dominated biosphere. But they need not have appeared de novo. In
principle, if a 200-atom polymer can make copies of itself and if those
copies can mutate into polymers that are occasionally better at the
reproduction game, then the non-linear equation is already in play and any
amount of complexity can arise. And precisely because the environment
automatically filters the output of this biological amplifier, we can expect
it to ramp up into some kind of stable set of oscillators fairly rapidly.
But because the oscillators themselves affect the environmental filter, we
can expect it to be unstable in the longer term.
>Snowflakes are exceedingly trivial, when compared to the required
>increase in "information, organization and complexity," utilized in
>Living systems!
Define "information" in biological systems. Organization and complexity are
found wherever there is chemistry with lots of atoms in the molecules.
>The second reason that you cannot use a "Snowflake," as that of proof,
>that life can create itself is the fact that, even though they can serve
>to prove passive "order," by their very structure they are both enabled
>and limited by the molecules of which they are comprised.
So are living organisms "limited" by the molecules of which they are
comprised. I will grant you that water crystals don't self-replicate with
the same tenacity that DNA does. But I don't expect them to, either. DNA is
a much larger molecule than H2O.
>So, Thats a bust!
This bears repeating:
>
>(DAVE)
>And anyone who looks at biological systems from a mathematical viepoint
>becomes quickly aware that non-linear differential equations play a
>major role in any real description of the processes and events. I invite
>you to look for a copy of Fractint (or Winfract) to investigate some of
>these possibilities for yourself. The problem that fundamentalists are
>REALLY having with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God
>but that it reveals that they have barely managed to see His toenails,
>never mind the rest of Him. And, for those Bronze Age herdsmen by and
>for whom Genesis was written, that was all they could handle. But it's
>time to grow up!
>
>(DAVE)
>We hope you will do us the courtesy of reciprocating.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Halbert
are organic either.
J Forbes
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Nobody has ever proved that there is a shred of evidence
> for any vitalist mysterious "essence of life."
So, I don't have an eternal soul after all? Darn...
> Not at all. Evolution simply pours itself into the niches in the environent.
> This LOOKS purposive, but it is not evolution that has the purpose. It is
> evolution's MAKER who has the purpose. This is an important theological
> distinction. Moreover, we cannot actually rule out ongoing intervention in
> the processes. All we can do is state that WE don't see any evidence of it.
> The feeling I get is that this is a feature and not a bug.
Interesting points, Dave. Question: how can a
MAKER plan ahead to make humans? Sounds rather
unlikely to me...so I don't think there is a MAKER.
> =================
> Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
Perhaps we just don't understand the odds? If it
happened, it was probable.
Regards,
Jim
Eros
> (Tina Previously)
>
> Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
> self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
Science knows no such thing. Only Young Earth Creationists seem to "know"
for a fact that "Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself (sic)
'evolve,' into a self-replicating organism". And apparently they "know"
this, not because any of them have ever done any science, but because they
read it in a 6000-year-old book of Hebrew folklore.
> (Tina prev.)
> The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
Your personal religious beliefs are nice, and I'm sure they give you a very
comfortable way of dealing with reality... but they are not evidence for
anything, except possibly how naive, ignorant and gullible you are. (And I
mean "ignorant" in the sense that you do not appear to know anything about
scientific facts, scientific theories or how science works in general.)
May your god go with you.
EROS.
Dave Oldridge
>Hi, Dave....
>
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> Nobody has ever proved that there is a shred of evidence
>> for any vitalist mysterious "essence of life."
>
>So, I don't have an eternal soul after all? Darn...
Well, if you do, it is not a physical substance.
>> Not at all. Evolution simply pours itself into the niches in the
>> environent. This LOOKS purposive, but it is not evolution that has the
>> purpose. It is evolution's MAKER who has the purpose. This is an
>> important theological distinction. Moreover, we cannot actually rule
>> out ongoing intervention in the processes. All we can do is state that
>> WE don't see any evidence of it. The feeling I get is that this is a
>> feature and not a bug.
>
>Interesting points, Dave. Question: how can a
>MAKER plan ahead to make humans? Sounds rather
>unlikely to me...so I don't think there is a MAKER.
1. "ahead" is probably not a timelike dimension in God's vision.
2. Everything that happens is highly unlikely.
>> =================
>> Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
>
>Perhaps we just don't understand the odds? If it
>happened, it was probable.
Improbable is improbable. Impossible is impossible. That's the difference
between an elephant (a highly improbable product of evolution if we had to
run it over again) and a rock so big God can't lift it.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Dave Oldridge
<3A8DF193...@alum.mit.edu>:
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#000000" vlink="#800080"
><alink="#CCCCCC">
>Dave addressed this all exceedingly well, so I hope my snips aren't taken
>to mean I'm avoiding things.
><br>
><br>
><p>~Tina~ wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>[snip]</blockquote>
>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>(Tina)
><br>Oh, but hold on here a minute! Lets get somethng REestablished. The
><br>orgin of our universe from either a creationist or an evolutonist
><point br>of view, is beyond the scientific testable hypothesis!
><UNknowable!= br>Supernatural= Faith!
><br>WE, my friend, are in the same boat on that one. LOL... Unless you
><br>happened to have run across a real tablesize "Earth," with Billions
>of
><br>years on it, that scientist could test?
><br>Now unless you can "prove," how our universe began, and that it indeed
><br>happened the way evolutionist say that it did, then don't get so ahead
><br>of yourself, by mistakingly thinking that you are, "one up on
>us." :-))</blockquote>
>
><p><br>There isn't any reason that at some point, many, many years from
>now, we couldn't simulate an earth-like environment. Suppose we did
>this a lot--or even with simpler versions of the earth--and the only rules
>we established were in some equivalent to the laws of physics. Now
>suppose very complex self replicating systems arise on many, or even just
>some of these simulations. Would that convince you?
><p>Sure, this is hypothetical, but I'm more curious as to how much faith
>plays a role in your conclusions.
><p>That life can sprout from, as you say, dead chemicals is not an
><untestable
>proposition and thus is not knowable. It is only unknowable until
>someone does it, or proves--in some way I can't imagine--that it cannot
>happen. As for which unknowable I will pick, I choose the simpler
>explanation, i.e. evolution. (yea, yea, abiogenisis to be more
>correct. But one can show, as Dawkins has, that a sort of
>generalized evolution might be possible without self-replication.
>So, in a sense, we are still talking about evolution. Just in an
>abstract sense.)
><p>You may find God to be a simpler answer, but I must disagree.
>I mean, for the whole God thing to work out, you need to add a lot more
>to our knowledge base of the observable universe than evolution.
><br>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>
><br>(DAVE)
><br>You seem to prefer the metaphor of some Bronze Age poet for a source
>of
><br>information on the matter because someone told you that God dictated
><br>this poem verbatim (God did not tell you this--some human did it),
>while
><br>I prefer to examine the actual work of God, the creation itself, in
><br>order to answer these questions.
><p>(Tina)
><br>Your ASSumption of what I prefer as evidence of God is silly to say
>the
><br>least!
><br>I base my beliefs on personal experience, empirical evidence,
>with 20
><br>million more Christians backing that evidence up.</blockquote>
>
><p><br>There are an estimated 1 billion Christians. There are also
>1 billion Muslims and 20 million Jews. I believe there are about
>1.5 billion Hindus. I'm not sure about the others. Just out
>of curiosity, why are excluding the 980 million other Christians?
><p>Also, I would not be surprised if there were a lot more than 20 million
>people on evolution's side, as the U.S. is really the only 1st world
>country in which this is an issue. Of course, the numbers game is
>pretty damn silly anyhow. Consider this:
><p>About 1 billion people can't read or write. About 90% of them
>don't know what a book is used for.
><p>So, books don't exist?
><br>
><br>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>You know? I do not understand why you
><non-believers/evolutionist,
>THINK,
><br>that you all have the market on Science!
><br>I believe in science! Most of the helpful things we utilize every day,
><br>were discovered by Scientist who were Christians!
><br>What has a evolution scientist EVER contributed to society, for the
>Good
><br>of Man? NOTHING! Communism, Racism, etc.. Got any Nobel Prize winning
><br>evolution scientist? Nope!</blockquote>
>
><p><br>Evolutionary biologists have, above all, contributed knowledge to
>the world, which is more than enough. Other than that, their
>research has allowed for improved crops and farm animals--to the extent
>that many lives have been preserved. Do not forget that was it not
>for evolutionary biologists, genetic research would not have progressed as
>rapidly. Evolutionary biologists provide a predictive scheme.
><p>Certainly, Nobels are generally not given to evolutionary biologists
>as their is no Nobel for biology. There is a prize for physics,
>chemistry, medicine, literature, peace, and economics. That is
>because these awards were established to award work that is directly
>applicable. For example, there is no Nobel for mathematics, but
>there is for physics, though many of the discoveries in physics are
>building from advances in mathematics. I doubt Alfred Nobel left out
>biology because of evolution, he probably just did not see it as an
>important applicable science at the time. Things have changed since
>1900.
><br>
><p>As for Nobel prizes, here are some given for related work:
><p>Edward Lewis, Christiane Nuesslein, Eric Wieschaus--genetic control
>of embryonic development
><br>Phillip A. Sharp, Richard J. Roberts--gene development in higher
><organisms
>evolution
><br>Barbara McClintock--mobile genetic elements
><br>Thomas Hunt Morgan--functions of chromosomes as the bearers of
><heredity br>
><p>Also, while their prizes may not have reflected it, the following are
>award winners who were involved in studying evolution:
><p>Henri Bergson
><br>Christian B. Anfinsen
><br>Walter Gilbert
><br>Christian de Duve
><br>Thomas Hunt Morgan
><br>Edward B.Lewis
><br>Johannes Vilhem Jensen
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>[snip]</blockquote>
>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>(Tina)
><br>Yea, and it also takes nothing less than a labotomy to swallow
><it!..... br>LOL
><br>There is absolutely NO scientist that have EVER, documented, dead,
><br>non-living chemicals evolving into a self-replicating organism! Never!
><br>LOL</blockquote>
>
><p><br>Why is this even necessary? It would be neat, no doubt, but
>it only needs to be possible (in a reasonable sense) for your argument
>to fail. It was possible, but God still created everything, what
>have you won?
><br>
><br>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>[snip]</blockquote>
>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>(DAVE)
><br>And anyone who looks at biological systems from a mathematical
><viepoint br>becomes quickly aware that non-linear differential equations
><play a br>major role in any real description of the processes and events.
><I invite br>you to look for a copy of Fractint (or Winfract) to
><investigate some
>of
><br>these possibilities for yourself.</blockquote>
>
><p><br>Fractint rocks, just for the record. I remember back when
>it was the only thing worth downloading on my 9600 bps modem from my
>BBS. Yes, that's right, BBS! Bet you forgot about those.
><br>
><br>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>[snip]</blockquote>
>
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>(Tina)
><br>Thank You for your response. Have a good one! :-)
><br>By the way, do you believe in God?</blockquote>
>
><p><br>I know you weren't asking me, but as God has no reason to care if
>I believe in him, I have no reason to waste my energy. Moreover,
>it is completely irrelevant to me if he does exist. If he does, good
>for him--existing isn't so easy. If he doesn't, then he needs to
>get on the ball. After all, there are 20 million Christians counting
>on him existing.
HTML is VERY hard to read on a real news reader. I recommend you switch it
off altogether and stick to plain text. Then again, maybe God does have
reason to care if you believe in Him. Maybe He wants to lead you to do some
marvellous thing!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
J Forbes
>
> jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in <3A8DEC9F...@primenet.com>:
>
> >Hi, Dave....
> >
> >Dave Oldridge wrote:
> >> Not at all. Evolution simply pours itself into the niches in the
> >> environent. This LOOKS purposive, but it is not evolution that has the
> >> purpose. It is evolution's MAKER who has the purpose. This is an
> >> important theological distinction. Moreover, we cannot actually rule
> >> out ongoing intervention in the processes. All we can do is state that
> >> WE don't see any evidence of it. The feeling I get is that this is a
> >> feature and not a bug.
> >
> >Interesting points, Dave. Question: how can a
> >MAKER plan ahead to make humans? Sounds rather
> >unlikely to me...so I don't think there is a MAKER.
>
> 1. "ahead" is probably not a timelike dimension in God's vision.
> 2. Everything that happens is highly unlikely.
1. Time is interesting...time is meaningless to
light (as is distance), but quite important to those
of us who are stuck in it. Since God seems to me to
be the invention of man, His vision can be whatever
you (a man) claim it to be.
2. The particular things that happen are unlikely,
but it seems inevitible that something will happen.
This makes me think there is no MAKER.
Your opinions may vary :)
> >> =================
> >> Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
> >
> >Perhaps we just don't understand the odds? If it
> >happened, it was probable.
>
> Improbable is improbable. Impossible is impossible. That's the difference
> between an elephant (a highly improbable product of evolution if we had to
> run it over again) and a rock so big God can't lift it.
I agree with this...but then again, it's probable
that some big animal would result from evolution on
the next run, although it would not be an elephant.
Since man invented God, we can of course say that
there is nothing He can't lift.
Regards,
Jim
Dave Oldridge
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>> jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in
>> <3A8DEC9F...@primenet.com>:
>>
>> >Hi, Dave....
>> >
>> >Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> >> Not at all. Evolution simply pours itself into the niches in the
>> >> environent. This LOOKS purposive, but it is not evolution that has
>> >> the purpose. It is evolution's MAKER who has the purpose. This is
>> >> an important theological distinction. Moreover, we cannot actually
>> >> rule out ongoing intervention in the processes. All we can do is
>> >> state that WE don't see any evidence of it. The feeling I get is that
>> >> this is a feature and not a bug.
>> >
>> >Interesting points, Dave. Question: how can a
>> >MAKER plan ahead to make humans? Sounds rather
>> >unlikely to me...so I don't think there is a MAKER.
>>
>> 1. "ahead" is probably not a timelike dimension in God's vision.
>> 2. Everything that happens is highly unlikely.
>
>1. Time is interesting...time is meaningless to
>light (as is distance), but quite important to those
>of us who are stuck in it. Since God seems to me to
>be the invention of man, His vision can be whatever
>you (a man) claim it to be.
It seemed, at one time, to a lot of people that Newtonian mechanics provided
a complete description of the laws of mechanics. They were wrong.
>2. The particular things that happen are unlikely,
>but it seems inevitible that something will happen.
>This makes me think there is no MAKER.
>
>Your opinions may vary :)
Whether there is or not, there is no way to say with merely physical
instrumentation for a guide.
And if you step out of the cage of physical instrumentation, then you have
already taken the frightening plunge by merely admitting that there is
another place.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
J Forbes
>
> jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in <3A8F24DC...@primenet.com>:
> >1. Time is interesting...time is meaningless to
> >light (as is distance), but quite important to those
> >of us who are stuck in it. Since God seems to me to
> >be the invention of man, His vision can be whatever
> >you (a man) claim it to be.
>
> It seemed, at one time, to a lot of people that Newtonian mechanics provided
> a complete description of the laws of mechanics. They were wrong.
Likewise, it seemed, at one time, that the book of
Genesis provided a complete description of how we
came to be. They were wrong.
I don't claim to know all there is...but I claim
that the only source of information we have about
any MAKER is man's imagination. So, I think this
MAKER is imaginary. There may be a real MAKER, but
if so, we don't have any idea of what it is or how
it works, and we have no reason to suspect there is
such a thing.
> >2. The particular things that happen are unlikely,
> >but it seems inevitible that something will happen.
> >This makes me think there is no MAKER.
> >
> >Your opinions may vary :)
>
> Whether there is or not, there is no way to say with merely physical
> instrumentation for a guide.
>
> And if you step out of the cage of physical instrumentation, then you have
> already taken the frightening plunge by merely admitting that there is
> another place.
I will admit that there may be another place, but as
I'm limited to two realms, one being my imagination,
the other being the cage of physical
instrumentation, I have no concept of what this
other place may be. If you have any ideas, please
let me know. From what I can tell, any claims by
man to know about this other place are simply
imagination. Perhaps your imagination is somehow
connected to a reality that I can't get to? :)
Regards,
Jim
leonardo dasso
Dave Oldridge <dold...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:904C7D3C9doldr...@154.11.89.178...
stick to "the cage of physical instrumentation". As they say: "beware of the
voices".
regards
leo
~Tina~
Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
(EROS)
Science knows no such thing. Only Young Earth Creationists seem to
"know" for a fact that "Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by
itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating organism". And apparently
they "know" this, not because any of them have ever done any science,
but because they read it in a 6000-year-old book of Hebrew folklore.
(Tina)
EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable! With all
due respect Eros, you need to go back to Science 101 if you do not know
this scientific Fact. I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU been? I am a
christian but Not a young earth advocate.
(Tina prev.)
The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
(EROS)
Your personal religious beliefs are nice, and I'm sure they give you a
very comfortable way of dealing with reality... but they are not
evidence for anything, except possibly how naive, ignorant and gullible
you are. (And I mean "ignorant" in the sense that you do not appear to
know anything about scientific facts, scientific theories or how science
works in general.)
(Tina)
After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
Painfully ignorant!!!
May your god go with you.
EROS.
(Tina)
May the Fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :-))
Next weeks Lesson: How to count PAST 10.
~Tina~
Zachary Strider McGregor-Dorsey
Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> tar...@alum.mit.edu (Zachary Strider McGregor-Dorsey) wrote in
> <3A8DF193...@alum.mit.edu>:
[snip a whole lot of stuff that showed be to be an idiot.]
>
> HTML is VERY hard to read on a real news reader. I recommend you switch it
> off altogether and stick to plain text. Then again, maybe God does have
> reason to care if you believe in Him. Maybe He wants to lead you to do some
> marvellous thing!
Actually, I know, and I'm quite embarrassed. I had the
thing checked to ask me about format before I sent the
message, but I must have pushed the wrong button or
something. I'm very sorry about that. I think I changed
things now so that won't happen again.
Zach
P.S. What reason could God possibly have? And yea, this is
a catch-22 question, as almost any answer sort of defeats
his godliness. Even if does care, though, I don't. It just
has no effect on my life. And if He does want to lead me to
do some marvelous thing, I'm not accepting. Any marvelous
thing I do, I want to do it myself. I'm not saying I won't
accept any help, but help from a supreme being is just plain
cheating. (See "The Flies" by Sartre) Let God help the
weak and stupid.
Dave Oldridge
>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>> jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in
>> <3A8F24DC...@primenet.com>:
>
>> >1. Time is interesting...time is meaningless to
>> >light (as is distance), but quite important to those
>> >of us who are stuck in it. Since God seems to me to
>> >be the invention of man, His vision can be whatever
>> >you (a man) claim it to be.
>>
>> It seemed, at one time, to a lot of people that Newtonian mechanics
>> provided a complete description of the laws of mechanics. They were
>> wrong.
>
>Likewise, it seemed, at one time, that the book of
>Genesis provided a complete description of how we
>came to be. They were wrong.
>
>I don't claim to know all there is...but I claim
>that the only source of information we have about
>any MAKER is man's imagination. So, I think this
>MAKER is imaginary. There may be a real MAKER, but
>if so, we don't have any idea of what it is or how
>it works, and we have no reason to suspect there is
>such a thing.
Speak for yourself. But don't limit others to your own self-imposed
limitations.
>> >2. The particular things that happen are unlikely,
>> >but it seems inevitible that something will happen.
>> >This makes me think there is no MAKER.
>> >
>> >Your opinions may vary :)
>>
>> Whether there is or not, there is no way to say with merely physical
>> instrumentation for a guide.
>>
>> And if you step out of the cage of physical instrumentation, then you
>> have already taken the frightening plunge by merely admitting that there
>> is another place.
>
>I will admit that there may be another place, but as
>I'm limited to two realms, one being my imagination,
>the other being the cage of physical
>instrumentation, I have no concept of what this
Ah, but the limitation is the cage and the cage is self-imposed.
>other place may be. If you have any ideas, please
>let me know. From what I can tell, any claims by
>man to know about this other place are simply
>imagination. Perhaps your imagination is somehow
>connected to a reality that I can't get to? :)
Well, at the risk of sounding mysterious, I'll just say this:
Seek and ye shall find.
Dave Oldridge
Well, as the man said, my mileage varies. That won't make a latter-day
creationist out of me any time soon, though. If there is anything to be
learned from this debate it's that the bibliolaters place the words in their
book (as interpreted by their cult leaders) above the things they CLAIM are
the direct work of God when it comes to deciding what's real and what's not.
That's pathological!
J Forbes
>
> jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in <3A9045B9...@primenet.com>:
>
> >I will admit that there may be another place, but as
> >I'm limited to two realms, one being my imagination,
> >the other being the cage of physical
> >instrumentation, I have no concept of what this
>
> Ah, but the limitation is the cage and the cage is self-imposed.
>
> >other place may be. If you have any ideas, please
> >let me know. From what I can tell, any claims by
> >man to know about this other place are simply
> >imagination. Perhaps your imagination is somehow
> >connected to a reality that I can't get to? :)
>
> Well, at the risk of sounding mysterious, I'll just say this:
> Seek and ye shall find.
I have seeked, and I have found only: 1. the real
world. 2. my imagination.
Are you sure that's not where you have found "it"?
Your being mysterious about it leads me to think
that you don't want to admit that it's all in your
imagination.
Regards,
Jim
Elmer Bataitis
> After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
> knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
> man and that is Life only comes from Life,....
Hmmm, so the Big Bang didn't happen? Why do you think this?
> I beleve I would just hide
> under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
> Painfully ignorant!!!
No, it wasn't.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional
thought.
**********************************************************
dlh
says...
Your damn right! You look hard enough and you can find anything as long as
you aren't too critical about its reality.
Dlh
leonardo dasso
> (Tina Previously)
> Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
> self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
>
In the first place, science knows there are no living chemicals, therefore
it doesnt tend to talk about "dead chemicals". Check that out!!
regards
leo
J Forbes
>
> In article <904D58535doldr...@154.11.89.178>, dold...@istar.ca
> says...
> > jfo...@primenet.com (J Forbes) wrote in <3A9045B9...@primenet.com>:
> > >I will admit that there may be another place, but as
> > >I'm limited to two realms, one being my imagination,
> > >the other being the cage of physical
> > >instrumentation, I have no concept of what this
> >
> > Ah, but the limitation is the cage and the cage is self-imposed.
> >
> > >other place may be. If you have any ideas, please
> > >let me know. From what I can tell, any claims by
> > >man to know about this other place are simply
> > >imagination. Perhaps your imagination is somehow
> > >connected to a reality that I can't get to? :)
> >
> > Well, at the risk of sounding mysterious, I'll just say this:
> > Seek and ye shall find.
> >
>
> Your damn right! You look hard enough and you can find anything as long as
> you aren't too critical about its reality.
>
> Dlh
That's what I thought....
Jim
Eros
> (Tina Previously)
> Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
> self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
>
> (EROS)
> Science knows no such thing. Only Young Earth Creationists seem to
> "know" for a fact that "Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by
> itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating organism". And apparently
> they "know" this, not because any of them have ever done any science,
> but because they read it in a 6000-year-old book of Hebrew folklore.
>
> (Tina)
> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much all-seeing
power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any scientific theory is an
absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs, scientific theories are meant to be
reviewed, changed and improved with the discovery of new scientific
evidence.
> With all due respect Eros, you need to go back to Science 101 if you do
not know
> this scientific Fact. I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU been? I am a
> christian but Not a young earth advocate.
Are you trying to tell me you learned that that "Dead chemicals do Not
spontaneously, all by itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating
organism" in Science 101? You must have attended an Institute for Creation
Research funded school. ;) BTW, scientists don't talk about "dead"
chemicals and "live" chemicals, because there is NO such distinction. In
their reactions ALL chemicals, whether organic or inorganic, obey exactly
the same laws of chemical bonding. (at least in this universe)
Even in the '50s scientists knew that "dead" chemicals would spontaneously
combine under the influence of electrical sparks or UV radiation to form the
building blocks of life, amino acids. Later, Profs. Sidney Fox and Ken
Matsuno showed that these amino acids spontaneously combined under the
influence of a little heat to form proteins of up to 200 amino acids long!
These proteins were observed to spontaneously form spheroidal cell-like
structures that had a double wall similar to that found in bacteria. These
"proto-cells", as they were called, had the tendency to grow in size and
reproduce by a simple budding technique, again similar to bacteria. Not only
that, but they displayed some other attributes found in living cells, such
as the ability to catalyze the decomposition of glucose and even to function
as esterases and peroxidases.
All from a bunch of "dead" chemicals! Go figure!
So whatever you learned in "Science 101" about "dead chemicals", it was
incorrect. Every bit of scientific research that has been done so far in
this field has shown that there is no reason why self-replicating proteins
cannot spontaneously appear as the result of reactions of simple inorganic
chemicals found everywhere in the universe. (CO2, H2, NH3, N2)
This old popular misconception has been the basis for false arguments
against evolution used by Creationists for decades... as Prof. Michael
Archer said, even back in the late '80s;-
"Arguments by creation 'scientists' about the improbability of the natural
origin of life (i.e. without the intervention of a supernatural Creator)
have become extremely strained. There is a rapidly accumulating experimental
evidence to show that when primordial conditions of Earth are recreated in
laboratories, monomers (e.g. amino acids), polymers (e.g. proteinoids
comprised of over 200 amino acids) and even protocells (coacervate spheres
and bacteria-like spheres made of organic molecules) form spontaneously.
Some of the protocells even grow and reproduce. The only step that has not
yet been spontaneously demonstrated is the evolution of DNA, but all basic
units of which this molecule is made have appeared spontaneously."
(Prof. Michael Archer, School of Zoology, University of NSW, "Confronting
Creationism: Defending Darwin", NSW University Press in association with the
Australian Institute of Biology, 1987, p.139)
It's only a matter of time.
>
> (Tina prev.)
> The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
>
> (EROS)
> Your personal religious beliefs are nice, and I'm sure they give you a
> very comfortable way of dealing with reality... but they are not
> evidence for anything, except possibly how naive, ignorant and gullible
> you are. (And I mean "ignorant" in the sense that you do not appear to
> know anything about scientific facts, scientific theories or how science
> works in general.)
> (Tina)
> After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
> knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
> man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
> under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
> Painfully ignorant!!!
After what I have shown you above, I am sure you now realise who is the
ignorant one in this discussion. :)
> May your god go with you.
> EROS.
>
> (Tina)
> May the Fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :-))
Ouch! :)
EROS.
Dave Oldridge
Nope...you already thought that at the outset and are not really willing to
entertain any alternative. When you change that, maybe you will see what I'm
driving at.
Dave Oldridge
All along, and with no better reasons than I have for what I am thinking.
~Tina~
(Tina prev.)
FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
(EROS)
Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
the discovery of new scientific evidence.
(Tina)
"Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
"Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
(Tina prev.)
With all due respect Eros, you need to go back to Science 101 if you do
not know this scientific Fact. I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU
been? I am a christian but Not a young earth advocate.
(EROS)
Are you trying to tell me you learned that that "Dead chemicals do Not
spontaneously, all by itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating
organism" in Science 101? You must have attended an Institute for
Creation Research funded school. ;)
(Tina)
Well, Well, aren't we witty today? :-O
(EROS)
BTW, scientists don't talk about "dead" chemicals and "live" chemicals,
because there is NO such distinction. In their reactions ALL chemicals,
whether organic or inorganic, obey exactly the same laws of chemical
bonding. (at least in this universe)
(Tina)
There are NO distinctions because chemicals are NON-LIVING, period!
(EROS)
Even in the '50s scientists knew that "dead" chemicals would
spontaneously combine under the influence of electrical sparks or UV
radiation to form the building blocks of life, amino acids.
(Tina)
THAT, is an outright Lie! In those experiments, Nothing happeed even
remotely close to anything that could ever be proof for non-living
chemicals evolving into even the simplest of a self-replicating orgnism.
Not to even mention that it takes two additional factors Besides Raw
Solar energy(open system) to decrease entropy!
* A program
*A mechaism
ALL living systems have this, NON-Living chemicals, Dead, Whatever, do
not!
(EROS)
(SNIP......all that "useless to reality," stuff)
The only step that has not yet been spontaneously demonstrated is the
evolution of DNA,
(Tina)
Typical evolutionist side-stepping, sand- shifting, tactic of
"Blurring," the Facts, and then trying to trivialize the very reason
that non-living chemicals could NOT have produced spontaneously, a
self-replicating organism.
There is NO adequate scenerio in which chemical evolution could have
occured, when we know that the chemical reagents needed to produce DNA,
"CONFLICT," with the chemical reagents, needed to produce amino-acids!
End of Story!
Stop being diverted by useless experiments, and stick with the Facts.
(EROSE)
but all basic units of which this molecule is made have appeared
spontaneously."
(Prof. Michael Archer, School of Zoology, University of NSW,
"Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin", NSW University Press in
association with the Australian Institute of Biology, 1987, p.139)
It's only a matter of time.
(Tina)
That means Nothing, even if it were True.
Oh yea, and Dream On!
(Tina)
After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
Painfully ignorant!!!
(EROS)
After what I have shown you above, I am sure you now realise who is the
ignorant one in this discussion. :)
May your god go with you.
EROS.
(Tina)
First of all, I did NOT say that, YOU were ignorant. I said that your
statement was, and, IT STILL IS!
No need to get all in a Snit Eros. Yes my God is with me! where is your
Soup god? whats it's name? Campbells? Oodles of Noodles? :-))
~Tina~
Gromit
~Tina~ wrote:
>
> (Tina prev.)
> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
>
> (EROS)
> Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
> all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
> scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
> scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
> the discovery of new scientific evidence.
>
>
> (Tina)
> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
> universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
> "Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
You are incorrect "life coming from life" is not a law, certainly not in
the meaning that you seem to be using it. Confusing abiogenesis with
"life comes from life" is quite common but cannot be supported by any
evidence. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding.
SNIP
> (EROS)
> BTW, scientists don't talk about "dead" chemicals and "live" chemicals,
> because there is NO such distinction. In their reactions ALL chemicals,
> whether organic or inorganic, obey exactly the same laws of chemical
> bonding. (at least in this universe)
>
> (Tina)
> There are NO distinctions because chemicals are NON-LIVING, period!
So what makes us living then?
> (EROS)
> Even in the '50s scientists knew that "dead" chemicals would
> spontaneously combine under the influence of electrical sparks or UV
> radiation to form the building blocks of life, amino acids.
>
> (Tina)
> THAT, is an outright Lie! In those experiments, Nothing happeed even
> remotely close to anything that could ever be proof for non-living
> chemicals evolving into even the simplest of a self-replicating orgnism.
Really? Of course proof is a strong word, but science has explored and
learned a lot about potential pathways through which life might have
arisen. The work of Sidney Fox and his protocells resulted in what some
might consider life. It reproduced, it had a 'metabolism', it responded
to exterior excitation etc.
> Not to even mention that it takes two additional factors Besides Raw
> Solar energy(open system) to decrease entropy!
> * A program
> *A mechaism
> ALL living systems have this, NON-Living chemicals, Dead, Whatever, do
> not!
Untrue, entropy does not require a "program", of course it requires a
mechanism, but plenty of mechanisms exist in the world of chemistry to
allow this to happen.
It's time for you to support your assertion that "a program is required"
to decrease entropy as well as a mechanism (whatever you mean by this).
Gromit
~Tina~ wrote:
> (Tina Previously)
> Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by itself "evolve," into a
> self-replicating organism! Science knows that for a fact.
>
> (EROS)
> Science knows no such thing. Only Young Earth Creationists seem to
> "know" for a fact that "Dead chemicals do Not spontaneously, all by
> itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating organism". And apparently
> they "know" this, not because any of them have ever done any science,
> but because they read it in a 6000-year-old book of Hebrew folklore.
>
> (Tina)
> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable! With all
> due respect Eros, you need to go back to Science 101 if you do not know
> this scientific Fact. I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU been? I am a
> christian but Not a young earth advocate.
But you do advocate something that seems to be disproven by reality.
Perhaps you can explain what part of Science 101 led you to your
conclusion. I hope that you realize that science 101 often simplifies
the picture?
>
>
> (Tina prev.)
> The answer to that is, God spake and it was done! Period!
A simple but unsatisfactory scientific answer.
> (EROS)
> Your personal religious beliefs are nice, and I'm sure they give you a
> very comfortable way of dealing with reality... but they are not
> evidence for anything, except possibly how naive, ignorant and gullible
> you are. (And I mean "ignorant" in the sense that you do not appear to
> know anything about scientific facts, scientific theories or how science
> works in general.)
> (Tina)
> After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
> knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
> man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
> under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
> Painfully ignorant!!!
What seems ignorant here is your claim about this "universal law". You
do understand the context of this "law"?
As a Christian scientist it worries me to see this confusion. Let me know how I can help.
J Forbes
> >> > Well, at the risk of sounding mysterious, I'll just say this:
> >> > Seek and ye shall find.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Your damn right! You look hard enough and you can find anything as long
> >> as you aren't too critical about its reality.
> >>
> >> Dlh
> >
> >
> >That's what I thought....
>
> All along, and with no better reasons than I have for what I am thinking.
Yeah, because I haven't been given any reasons for
thinking something else!
Jim
J Forbes
> >Your being mysterious about it leads me to think
> >that you don't want to admit that it's all in your
> >imagination.
>
> Nope...you already thought that at the outset and are not really willing to
> entertain any alternative. When you change that, maybe you will see what I'm
> driving at.
I'm willing to entertain an alternative...but you
haven't given me any clues about where to look. Ok,
maybe you have given what *you* consider to be
clues, but they've gone right past me....
Jim
Eros
"~Tina~" <ChatB...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1313-3A9...@storefull-287.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The email address says it all! LOL!
~Tina~ ranted;
> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted universial
LAW! FACT! Period!
> I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU been?
> THAT, is an outright Lie! Not to even mention that it takes two additional
factors Besides Raw Solar energy(open system) to decrease entropy! * A
program *A mechaism
> ALL living systems have this, NON-Living chemicals, Dead, Whatever, do
not!
> There is NO adequate scenerio in which chemical evolution could have
> occured, when we know that the chemical reagents needed to produce DNA,
> "CONFLICT," with the chemical reagents, needed to produce amino-acids!
> End of Story!
> Stop being diverted by useless experiments, and stick with the Facts.
> That means Nothing, even if it were True.
> Oh yea, and Dream On!
> After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
> knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
> man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
> under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
> Painfully ignorant!!!
> No need to get all in a Snit Eros. Yes my God is with me! where is your
> Soup god? whats it's name? Campbells? Oodles of Noodles? :-))
ROFLMAO!!! :) :)
EROS.
Dave Oldridge
Dave Oldridge
287.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
>
>(Tina prev.)
>EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
>FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
Lessee....I want to take this vitalism of yours apart and find out how you
think it works. I eat food, and most of it, except for the occasional fresh
green thing consists of "dead chemicals." Yet inside of hours some of these
"dead" chemicals are performing functions inside my living cells. Nothing
special has happened to them either, other than being induced by purely
physical means to cross membranes. So, in the final analysis, just about all
of the cells in my body started out as something dead.
>(EROS)
>Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
>all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
>scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
>scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
>the discovery of new scientific evidence.
>
>
>(Tina)
>"Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
>universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
>"Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
Now, just where does this "LAW" come from? A "law" in science is a very
persistent observation. And this particular one first took form when Pasteur
showed that maggots in rotting meat are not created de novo but hatch from
eggs laid by flies. This would hardly seem to prove that the first life on
the planet needed a divine miracle of a special sort (other than the divine
miracle of creating the universe itself just the way it is).
The chemistry of living cells is complex, but it remains chemistry. Imputing
its origin to a miracle does nothing to help us understand it at all and is
unnecessary both theologically and scientifically.
>(Tina prev.)
>With all due respect Eros, you need to go back to Science 101 if you do
>not know this scientific Fact. I mean good Lord dude, wher have YOU
>been? I am a christian but Not a young earth advocate.
>
>(EROS)
>Are you trying to tell me you learned that that "Dead chemicals do Not
>spontaneously, all by itself (sic) 'evolve,' into a self-replicating
>organism" in Science 101? You must have attended an Institute for
>Creation Research funded school. ;)
>
>(Tina)
>Well, Well, aren't we witty today? :-O
>
>
>(EROS)
>BTW, scientists don't talk about "dead" chemicals and "live" chemicals,
>because there is NO such distinction. In their reactions ALL chemicals,
>whether organic or inorganic, obey exactly the same laws of chemical
>bonding. (at least in this universe)
>
>(Tina)
>There are NO distinctions because chemicals are NON-LIVING, period!
This is true....so what makes something alive rather than merely being an
essmblage of atoms? Is it not, in fact, the organization of those atoms into
something that can make copies of itself? So, is it not the case that we
decide whether an assemblage of chemicals is living or not on that basis?
>(EROS)
>Even in the '50s scientists knew that "dead" chemicals would
>spontaneously combine under the influence of electrical sparks or UV
>radiation to form the building blocks of life, amino acids.
>
>(Tina)
>THAT, is an outright Lie! In those experiments, Nothing happeed even
>remotely close to anything that could ever be proof for non-living
>chemicals evolving into even the simplest of a self-replicating orgnism.
>Not to even mention that it takes two additional factors Besides Raw
>Solar energy(open system) to decrease entropy!
First of all, entropy never decreases. It may APPEAR to decrease locally due
to a larger increase somewhere else, but the overall entropy of the universe
(or any thermodynamically isolated part of it) always increases. Of course
it STARTED quite low and infinity leaves a lot of room for increase!
>* A program
>*A mechaism
>ALL living systems have this, NON-Living chemicals, Dead, Whatever, do
>not!
Well, my definition is probably a little less stringent than yours. I define
as living, anything that self-replicates. I define as evolving anything that
self-replicates with occasional errors that affect the replication ability.
>(EROS)
>(SNIP......all that "useless to reality," stuff)
>
>The only step that has not yet been spontaneously demonstrated is the
>evolution of DNA,
This is perhaps stretching it a tad, but not as large a tad as you would
like. Molecules in the 100-atom range (well within the range of random
polymerization) have shown the ability to both self-replicate and evolve.
And the ones that are best at it look suspiciously like some of the bits that
go to make up DNA.
So, far from springing into existence in a single event, DNA itself (and RNA
before that) could easily be the product of considerable prior evolution.
>(Tina)
>Typical evolutionist side-stepping, sand- shifting, tactic of
>"Blurring," the Facts, and then trying to trivialize the very reason
>that non-living chemicals could NOT have produced spontaneously, a
>self-replicating organism.
Typical creationist bullying tactic. When you have been shown that you are
simply wrong, insult your opponent and repeat the incorrect assertion.
>There is NO adequate scenerio in which chemical evolution could have
>occured, when we know that the chemical reagents needed to produce DNA,
>"CONFLICT," with the chemical reagents, needed to produce amino-acids!
>End of Story!
Not at all. Merely a good place to begin investigating.
>Stop being diverted by useless experiments, and stick with the Facts.
Right. This is the creationist rede. Stop doing science and revert to
medieval scholasticism. The only variance among you is the amount of science
you are willing to permit. SOME of you want to run the clock back to before
Eratosthenes (but paradoxically want to retain Christianity, which came
later). Most are not that extreme, preferring to run it back to about the
16th century or so.
>(EROSE)
>but all basic units of which this molecule is made have appeared
>spontaneously."
>(Prof. Michael Archer, School of Zoology, University of NSW,
>"Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin", NSW University Press in
>association with the Australian Institute of Biology, 1987, p.139)
>It's only a matter of time.
>
>(Tina)
>That means Nothing, even if it were True.
>Oh yea, and Dream On!
This seems to be about the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears
and your tongue out. It is not a particularly good argument.
>(Tina)
>After that absolutely absurd statement of yours about science not
>knowing one of the most well established universal natural Laws known to
>man and that is Life only comes from Life, I beleve I would just hide
>under something because that was not only an ignorant statement, but
>Painfully ignorant!!!
You are throwing stones in a glass house. I will grant you that we have
never seen life arise spontaneously in nature. There are a bunch of reasons
why this will not happen in the present state of the earth's biosphere. But
life did not arise in the present biosphere. There were no living organisms
at all when the first chemicals began to self-catalyze efficiently enough to
increase their concentration on a global scale. And there was little to no
free oxygen around.
>(EROS)
>After what I have shown you above, I am sure you now realise who is the
>ignorant one in this discussion. :)
>May your god go with you.
>EROS.
>
>(Tina)
>First of all, I did NOT say that, YOU were ignorant. I said that your
>statement was, and, IT STILL IS!
It isn't. And labelling someone's ideas as ignorant while demonstrating your
own is not apt to endear you to people. Especially if you don't actually
SHOW what is wrong with theirs.
>No need to get all in a Snit Eros. Yes my God is with me! where is your
>Soup god? whats it's name? Campbells? Oodles of Noodles? :-))
>~Tina~
God is everywhere. And was even present in the "soup." You appear to have
theological as well as scientific inconsistencies. Moreover, they appear to
be linked in some fashion.
Dave Oldridge
>
>
>~Tina~ wrote:
>
>>
>> (Tina prev.)
>> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
>> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
>>
>> (EROS)
>> Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
>> all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
>> scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
>> scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
>> the discovery of new scientific evidence.
>>
>>
>> (Tina)
>> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
>> universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
>> "Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
>
>You are incorrect "life coming from life" is not a law, certainly not in
>the meaning that you seem to be using it. Confusing abiogenesis with
>"life comes from life" is quite common but cannot be supported by any
>evidence. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding.
I do not believe it is a misunderstanding on the part of the professional
creationist who originated the argument. I think "deliberate equivocation"
would be a better description of that behavior.
That the scientifically ignorant are taken in by the equivocation is not,
however, surprising. The target audience of the professional creationist
scam artist is very used to arguments from authority and tends to take them
at face value. And, unless you KNOW the basis of this equivocation, the
fallacy will slip right in.
Gromit
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> mvp5...@qwest.net (Gromit) wrote in <3A932361...@qwest.net>:
>
>
>>
>> ~Tina~ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (Tina prev.)
>>> EXCUSE ME? Science Knows NO such thing?.... LOL Science KNOWS this for a
>>> FACT, it has been tried in every form and fashion imaginable!
>>>
>>> (EROS)
>>> Every form "imaginable" huh? You give us scientists far too much
>>> all-seeing power. You are sadly mistaken if you think that any
>>> scientific theory is an absolute fact. Unlike religious beliefs,
>>> scientific theories are meant to be reviewed, changed and improved with
>>> the discovery of new scientific evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> (Tina)
>>> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
>>> universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
>>> "Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
>>
>> You are incorrect "life coming from life" is not a law, certainly not in
>> the meaning that you seem to be using it. Confusing abiogenesis with
>> "life comes from life" is quite common but cannot be supported by any
>> evidence. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding.
>
>
> I do not believe it is a misunderstanding on the part of the professional
> creationist who originated the argument. I think "deliberate equivocation"
> would be a better description of that behavior.
Whatever the source of the confusion is, it is not helpful either from a
religious perspective nor from a scientific perspective to let it continue.
> That the scientifically ignorant are taken in by the equivocation is not,
> however, surprising. The target audience of the professional creationist
> scam artist is very used to arguments from authority and tends to take them
> at face value. And, unless you KNOW the basis of this equivocation, the
> fallacy will slip right in.
In case of Tina, the repetition of the SLOT 'argument' and the confusion
of abiogenesis with what Pasteur did show suggests a reliance on
indirect sources. We can help Tina best by carefully exposing the errors
in these arguments. As a Christian and as a scientist I will be more
than happy to discuss these issues in full detail.
leonardo dasso
~Tina~ <ChatB...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1313-3A9...@storefull-287.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
>
> "Life," only comes from "Life," is NOT a theory but an accepted
> universial LAW! FACT! Period! Not everything is a
> "Theory," just waiting to prove something else Eros!
>
>
are.
It follows that at some stage living organisms must have emerged.
Consequently, your statement that life only comes from life, is shaky at
best.
regards
leo
J Forbes
I've looked inside, and I see whatever I tell myself
I'll see. There's nothing there but me!
For awhile, I though I had found God there, but on
reflection I realized that it was just me doing what
I had been told God would do.
Thanks for the input, though! I'm glad to know that
you can keep up the illusion in your mind...it must
be nice. I just can't do it.
Regards,
Jim
Dave Oldridge
>Dave--
>
>I've looked inside, and I see whatever I tell myself
>I'll see. There's nothing there but me!
We're getting somewhere really.
>For awhile, I though I had found God there, but on
>reflection I realized that it was just me doing what
>I had been told God would do.
Maybe you missed the forest by looking too much at one tree.
>Thanks for the input, though! I'm glad to know that
>you can keep up the illusion in your mind...it must
>be nice. I just can't do it.
It's your opinion, of course, that what I see is illusory. I'm not really
interested in making you agree with me, just in pointing out that I'm not
basing my notions on thin air. I just don't really care to describe
experiences that you will discount anyway. I'd rather nudge you into having
experiences of your own. True spirituality does not come from assent to some
formula or doctrine, although it may well give rise to those. It comes from
direct experience. You have to become your own priest (or priestess). There
is no substitute for this.
J Forbes
> >Thanks for the input, though! I'm glad to know that
> >you can keep up the illusion in your mind...it must
> >be nice. I just can't do it.
>
> It's your opinion, of course, that what I see is illusory. I'm not really
> interested in making you agree with me, just in pointing out that I'm not
> basing my notions on thin air. I just don't really care to describe
> experiences that you will discount anyway. I'd rather nudge you into having
> experiences of your own. True spirituality does not come from assent to some
> formula or doctrine, although it may well give rise to those. It comes from
> direct experience. You have to become your own priest (or priestess). There
> is no substitute for this.
Dave--
I think that what you see is real *to you*.
However, I doubt that it is real anywhere else. You
are welcome to try to demonstrate otherwise,
although I understand your reluctance to go into
detail, and I recall you saying that this is an area
that is not withing the realm of pysical
instrumentation. Sounds like a draw :)
If we really want to understand spirituality in a
somewhat scientific way, we'll probably have to
start by trying to define the architecture of the
human mind. We might get somewhere by doing this,
but I doubt it's a place that those who are
spiritually inclined really want to get to. And the
rest of us seem quite content to just chalk it all
up to human imagination/subconscious, which I think
is far more powerfull than most people will admit.
Quite an interesting discussion, though! And you
sound like a very smart and thoughtful person.
Regards,
Jim
Dave Oldridge
Quite the opposite, actually. The truly spiritual are very much interested
in understanding the architecture of the human mind. And sometimes come up
with very practical ways to do so. Believe me, even a short juice-only fast
will bring you more into contact with your subconscious than most people want
to get. I know I was barely a day into one once when I caught the ol'
subconscious buying itself a donut. :-)
The subconscious is an excellent slave (helps me drive and type for example)
but it can be a bad master.
J Forbes
I wonder though...does being in contact with your
subconscious help you understand how it works...or
get you confused about what's real?
Many years ago I went on a water only fast for a few
days. I don't recall any unusual thoughts...but I
sure was low on energy.
Jim
Dave Oldridge
>Interesting!
>
>I wonder though...does being in contact with your
>subconscious help you understand how it works...or
>get you confused about what's real?
>
>Many years ago I went on a water only fast for a few
>days. I don't recall any unusual thoughts...but I
>sure was low on energy.
Just water is a bad idea usually. Your blood sugar will fall too low for
comfort. But juice only will fix that...and if you use grape juice there's
iron in that.