The Difference Between Science and Creationism
Budikka666
"Keller says her team's newest research, however, confirms what she
has found in earlier studies -- that the sandstone complex that
overlays the impact layer was not deposited over hours or days by a
tsunami but over a long time period. From El Peñon in Mexico and other
sites listed in the new study, the scientists were able to calculate
that between 13 and 30 feet of sediments were deposited at a rate of
about an inch per thousand years after the impact. These sediments
separating the impact layer from the sandstone complex and the
overlying mass extinction were formed by normal processes. There is
evidence of erosion and transportation of sediments in the sandstone
layers, but no evidence of structural disturbance, Keller said."
Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
"science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
evolution.
But here we have a real scientists showing how it's done. Gerta
Keller thinks there's something amiss with the prevailing
understanding that a massive meteorite wiped out over 80% of species
then alive, marking the end of the cretaceous period. So what did she
do? Did she take the creationist route and simply whine about it in
Internet news groups? Did she start a web site and whine about it
there? Did she write a vanity-published book and whine about it
there?
No, she didn't do any whining at all. Unlike the creationists, she
actually did the science required to provide support for her position.
But that's not the biggest problem the young-Earth creationists have.
Their problem is explaining the meteor impact and the extinction.
If humans were alive at the same time as the dinosaurs, then they were
alive at the same time as the literally Earth-shattering impact, yet
nowhere in the Bible does this unmissable event get a single mention.
Nowhere in the Bible does the disappearance of some 85% of living
species get a mention. In fact not *one* of the five major
extinctions gets a mention in the Bible, nor does *any* of the massive
meteor strikes Earth has suffered since the planet first congealed 4.5
billion years ago.
What this proves is that he creationists are liars when they claim
that Earth is only six thousand years old (or whatever their
ridiculous young-Earth claim happens to be) and they are liars when
they claim humans have been around since the "beginning".
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
>"science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
>evolution.
Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
years old.
Turkeys like you never get it, bud the dud.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka
Run until he shows an inkling of intelligence, but his response to my
opener here merits setting him straight and pointing out once again
what a LYING PIECE OF SHIT he truly is.
He claims that "we Christians define creationsim (sic) as a 4.5
billion year old Earth". The fact that he's a LIAR is proven by this
study here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
You can see from this that pretty consistently, ~46% of the US
population believe that "God created man pretty much in his present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Since some 90% of the US accept that there is a god, and some 80%
accept that there was a Jesus Christ, then you can see that there is a
huge portion of the population that does indeed take the Bible
literally.
Dumb Duck-Egg has had this pointed out to him repeatedly, and it's
testimony only to his abysmal stupidity that he is still telling this
same old LIE.
Now back to our normal programming....
Budikka
Tim Miller
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
>> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
>> evolution.
>
> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
> creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
> years old.
I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
(unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
IlBe...@gmail.com
> http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/05/gerta_keller_goes_after_imp...
When Mt. St. Helens exploded, it carved an enormous path a long
distance and layed down 30' of sediment ... all in 15 minutes ., so it
doesnt take millions of years for such things. The millions of years
mantra is necessary to give chance every possible chance via
Naturalism/Accidentalism to produce highly complex things such as
DNA ...that can only come from willful Intelligence .
Modern science is confirming The Bible on almost a daily basis :
The head of the Human Genome Project, Dr Francis Collins, last year
published a book about his journey from atheism into faith arguing
that
science and religion, far from being irreconcilable, are in fact in
deep
harmony. Even AGNOSTIC scientists such as Prof. Robert Gastrow of
NASA Goddard Institute and author of 'God and the Astronomers' says
all of (real) science culminates in Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning
""GOD"" created the heavens and the earth' . Its only people who
force themselves to believe in 19th century 'science' and who
(beforehand) refuse to consider a Divine Creator .... that say given
enough time , anything can happen.
IlBe...@gmail.com
Could you tell us how your choice of (vile) language coincides with
you not wanting a personal Creator/Designer , God, to exist ? Thank
you kindly.
IlBe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
Old age Creationist/Christians and Young age Creationist/Christians
often argue extraneous issues ; what all Christians do believe in is
the Creator of the Universe and that he came to earth in the person of
Jesus Christ as corroborated by christian as well as secular
scientific evidences . Many atheists are at odds on various
issues ... some even know that using uncontrolled foul language is
morally incorrect and so they refrain from using it. Others know
human life starts at conception and place instrinsic worth and dignity
in the developing BABY human. Some dont even support Dawkins and his
vitrol toward the Christian Faith and Creation Scientists . Ergo,
atheism isnt as harmonious as you think it is .
phillip brown
It may surprise you know that there is a difference between what is
laid down due to volcanic eruption, and what is laid down by a river
delta.
And scientists can tell the difference.
phillip brown
Uncle Vic
> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth.
Which is how the bible defines it, if you're counting.
> We Christians
> define creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as
> 14.5 billion years old.
Not before science proved it this way. You're just trying to fit your
square peg into a round hole. Idiot.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
panam...@hotmail.com
> On May 7, 3:46 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > duke wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
> > >> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
> > >> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
> > >> evolution.
>
> > > Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
> > > creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
> > > years old.
>
> > I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>
> > Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
> > (unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
>
> Old age Creationist/Christians and Young age Creationist/Christians
> often argue extraneous issues ;
And killed each other for a thousand years over "extraneous issues":
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_reformation.htm
> what all Christians do believe in is
> the Creator of the Universe and that he came to earth in the person of
> Jesus Christ as corroborated by christian as well as secular
> scientific evidences .
There *is* no secular evidence for your moronic supernatural fantasy.
> Many atheists are at odds on various
> issues ...
But none of those issues seem to be about basic biology.
> some even know that using uncontrolled foul language is
> morally incorrect
Someone who still considers *any* version of the Abrahamic mythology
as "true" has no fucking buisiness talking about morality, or
comparing a few rude words to the wholesale slaughter contained in the
pathetic old books left behind by the scared little people who wrote
them so long ago.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html
> and so they refrain from using it. Others know
> human life starts at conception and place instrinsic worth and dignity
> in the developing BABY human. Some dont even support Dawkins and his
> vitrol toward the Christian Faith and Creation Scientists . Ergo,
> atheism isnt as harmonious as you think it is .
It's amazing that you *still* post your insipid ignorance as if it's
anything other than your ignorance. Damn, moron...how do you manage to
dress yourself in the morning? The fact that your dumb ass hasn't been
killed by a truck as you cross an intersection against the light is
all the proof I need that either your god doesn't exist, or that it's
too fucking stupid to realize how ineffective you are at spreading its
"message" to humanity.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
dubh_...@hotmail.com
Vile language?
You must be a newbe, or lead a very sheltered life.
Your fellow christians, use far worse than anything Budikka said.
>coincides with
>you not wanting a personal Creator/Designer , God, to exist ? Thank
>you kindly.
Cupid stunt!
dubh_...@hotmail.com
>some even know that using uncontrolled foul language is
>morally incorrect and so they refrain from using it.
Sadly, some christians, don't.
Tim Miller
> On May 7, 3:46 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>>>> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
>>>> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
>>>> evolution.
>>> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
>>> creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
>>> years old.
>> I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>>
>> Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
>> (unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
>
> Old age Creationist/Christians and Young age Creationist/Christians
> often argue extraneous issues ;
...usually from ignorance.
> what all Christians do believe in is
> the Creator of the Universe and that he came to earth in the person of
> Jesus Christ as corroborated by christian as well as secular
> scientific evidences .
Sorry. There's exactly NO evidence, scientific or otherwise, that
your little imaginary buddy ever existed.
> Many atheists are at odds on various
> issues ... some even know that using uncontrolled foul language is
> morally incorrect and so they refrain from using it. Others know
> human life starts at conception and place instrinsic worth and dignity
> in the developing BABY human.
Uhh, did you have an actual POINT in there?
> Some dont even support Dawkins and his
> vitrol toward the Christian Faith and Creation Scientists . Ergo,
> atheism isnt as harmonious as you think it is .
But it's not just a big plagiarized fairy tale, either...
Ken
Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
Ken
> It may surprise you know that there is a difference between what is
> laid down due to volcanic eruption, and what is laid down by a river
> delta.
>
> And scientists can tell the difference.
>
> phillip brown
Dimwitted Dave can't tell the difference between his ass and a hole in
the ground, so don't expect him to understand geology
Andrew
Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
"Ken"
___________________________________________
It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
speakable joy that they have never known.
Andrew
Ken
> "Ken" <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0c555cf5-9161-4189...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 7, 4:55 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> "Ken"
> ___________________________________________
>
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> Andrew
Your wouldn't know "truth" even if it was soaked in gas, lit afire and
shoved up your butt.
You prove THAT on a nearly daily basis
ed wolf
> Could you tell us how your choice of (vile) language coincides with
> you not wanting a personal Creator/Designer , God, to exist ? Thank
> you kindly.
I found a quote you will like:
"Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation,
and disrespect for human dignity, one’s own and that of other
people."
Leo Trotsky
( you should read more of that author )
cheers, ed
Sla#s
> On 8 Mai, 01:55, IlBeBauck wrote:
>
>> Could you tell us how your choice of (vile) language coincides with
>> you not wanting a personal Creator/Designer , God, to exist ? Thank
>> you kindly.
>
>
> I found a quote you will like:
>
> "Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation,
> people."
> Leo Trotsky
>
Steven Fry on Swearing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM
Slatts
Tim Miller
"Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate
circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
ed wolf
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
> His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
> speakable joy that they have never known.
>
> Andrew
Back off you obnoxious slimy thing,
take your moist little paws off me!
The very thought of your mad fantasies focusing on me
feels like heaps of warm snot creeping my way.
Just wobble back to those unspeakable joys,
and never go into any details about them, please.
Some Christians would make a lion get sick,
let alone your disgusted
e. wolf
After coming into contact with a religious man I always
feel I must wash my hands.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> "Ken" wrote:
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> "Ken"
> ___________________________________________
>
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> Andrew
Your wouldn't know "truth" even if it was soaked in gas, lit afire and
shoved up your butt. You prove THAT on a nearly daily basis.
"Ken"
__________________________________________________
Notice that Ken proves my point. Nevertheless God loves him and
offers to give him His peace which passes all understanding and an
unspeakable joy that he has never known.
Andrew
Budikka
http://tinyurl.com/cl7lrf
You don't have another thing to say until and unless you bring on the
evidence.
End of story. Case closed.
Budikka
Budikka
> "Ken" <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0c555cf5-9161-4189...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 7, 4:55 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> "Ken"
> ___________________________________________
>
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> Nevertheless God loves them
Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that there's a god and
that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
wrong you are. Deal?
Your failure to post your objective and/or scientific evidence will be
deemed an outright and unconditional admission from you that atheists
have been corect all along in their position that there is zero useful
evidence for any god and even less useful evidence that any god loves
us. In fact the evidence contradicts any such claim.
I'm waiting.
Budikka
SkyEyes
> "Ken" <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0c555cf5-9161-4189...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Still waiting for you to furnish evidence that *any* god actually
exists, Andrew. Got any?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Ken" <flak...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:0c555cf5-9161-4189...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>On May 7, 4:55 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
>"Ken"
>___________________________________________
>
>It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
Only because psychopaths like you can't live and let live.
>Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
>confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
Why do you feel the need to repeatedly lie about atehists, to them?
And why do you lie about your deludions being "truth"?
>Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
Assumes facts not in evidennce, question-begging retard.
>His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
>speakable joy that they have never known.
Prove it, liar.
>Andrew
Why are you such an in-your-face, psychopathic retard?
JessHC
duke wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
> >Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
> >"science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
> >evolution.
>
> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
> creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
> years old.
"We Christians"?
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm
Didn't the dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago?
There is good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old.
In BOOKS, see Dr. Ackerman's It's a Young World After All. The "65
million years" is a recent mental invention. Evolution provides a
mental hiding place from our powerful Creator. Evolution claims
(theologically) that our God is weak or non-existent. Right? Think
about what evolution claims about our origins. Dragons (per the
previous FAQ answer) were seen and sometimes fought by our ancestors
on all inhabited continents. Our ancestors were honest in recording
sightings of large dangerous reptilian creatures. They lived
concurrent with man. Humans saw dinosaurs. Sure, stories later
became embellished, but the germ of truth that humans and dinosaurs
(dragons) lived at the same time remains accurate. They lived in
different places ... but at the same time - until the dinosaurs were
mostly driven to extinction. (There are still a few living dinos out
there, by the way.)
4004 B.C. ... you can't be serious!!
There are actually several different versions of what is called
"creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting
most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life
falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists
argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that
"Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the
process used by this "God" after that. From www.creationism.org we
link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other
creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued
learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one
prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting
evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over
10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth
creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty
close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly
laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods
actually work, sorry.
It looks like "we Christians" disagree with you.
JessHC
IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Many atheists are at odds on various
> issues ... some even know that using uncontrolled foul language is
> morally incorrect and so they refrain from using it.
Please explain how "foul language" is "morally incorrect."
Ken
> "Ken" wrote in messagenews:c69c2cbe-e377-4ac9...@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> > "Ken" wrote:
> > "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> > "Ken"
> > ___________________________________________
>
> > It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> > Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> > confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Your wouldn't know "truth" even if it was soaked in gas, lit afire and
> shoved up your butt. You prove THAT on a nearly daily basis.
> "Ken"
> __________________________________________________
>
> Notice that Ken proves my point.
The point being that you have NO idea of what truth is....
Ken
wrote:
>
> "Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate
> circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."
>
> - Mark Twain, a Biography
Shit! That's a good one....K
Wombat
> "Ken" <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0c555cf5-9161-4189...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 7, 4:55 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <IlBeBa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> "Ken"
> ___________________________________________
>
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
Yet again, you show you don't know the difference between anger and
exasperation.
Wombat
Andrew
If one was morally bankrupt, they would be unable to understand the answer.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Ken" wrote:
>> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
>> "Ken"
>> ___________________________________________
>>
>> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>>
>> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
>> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>>
>> Nevertheless God loves them
>
> Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that there's a god and
> that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
> wrong you are. Deal?
Why would you ask if you are convinced that you already know the answer?
> Your failure to post your objective and/or scientific evidence will be
> deemed an outright and unconditional admission from you that atheists
> have been corect all along in their position that there is zero useful
> evidence for any god..
If you really want to know, ask the atheists who have converted.
> and even less useful evidence that any god loves
> us. In fact the evidence contradicts any such claim.
What would you do, if you could see evidence that God loves you?
> Budikka
Andrew
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> "Ken" wrote:
> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> "Ken"
> ___________________________________________
>
> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>
> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>
> Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
> His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
> speakable joy that they have never known.
>
> Andrew
Still waiting for you to furnish evidence that *any*
god actually exists, Andrew. Got any? ("SkyEyes")
______________________________________________
Tell us exactly what you would do with this evidence.
Tony Wilson
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:c7Gdna0E6rPRKJjX...@earthlink.com...
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message
news:0fe7bff5-d3bf-4926...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> > "Ken" wrote:
> > Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
> > "Ken"
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> > It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
*** Very sad?? I studied the Jehovah's for 20 years during which time I got
my degree in Psychology. I couldn't be happier now that I'm out of that
cult. If religious people are so in love with being in church, then why do
that all rush out when it's done and drive away fast.
> >
> > Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
**** I've found in 20 years of activity that the people getting angry are
the householders. And when you try to prove them wrong, they are insulted
and agitated since you've attacked their beliefs. So why do the JW's shun
everyone who refuses to believe every rule coming from the leaders. Just
like now. Many believers here have been mad and insulting when agnostics
tell them they can't prove God exists.
> > confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
*** False position?? People who believe in God are the ones with the false
position. I use college facts in science, calculus, and other courses to
show them they have no proof.
> >
> > Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
> > His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
> > speakable joy that they have never known.
********** If God loves people, then why does he let them get sick, lose a
loved one, born with birth defects, victims of child abuse, etc. Remember,
God supposedly created everything, it wasn't Satan who did this. What kind
of love is that?? I'd rather he didn't "love" me since when he does, it
always gets mangled.
thomas p.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:c7Gdna0E6rPRKJjX...@earthlink.com...
You are so predictable.
Cory Albrecht
> "Budikka" wrote in message news:19ab749e-09fe-4b09...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
>> wrong you are. Deal?
>
> Why would you ask if you are convinced that you already know the answer?
Because, Andrew, Buddika has something which you lack - the honesty
which allows Buddika to be open minded to being shown wrong.
Cory Albrecht
What does it matter what she would do with the evidence?
Can you provide it or not? Why do you always tapdance away like this
when somebody ask for evidence of God?
Budikka
> Tell us exactly what you would do with this evidence.
Present the evidence and you'll find out. I'm posting reports of new
scientific evidence for abiogenesis and evolution every month, every
year, regularly, repeatedly, with no effort at all. Why is it that
you creationists **CANNOT POST EVEN ONE SINGLE ITEM OF EVIDENCE FOR
YOUR CREATION**?
Budikka
Budikka
Because - AS I'VE REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU, but which your;e quite
evidently too fundamentally STUPID to even remotely grasp, *unlike
you*, I go by the weight of the evidence.
No one is more interested in the scientific evidence - either for or
agianst - than those who honestly *support* science.
Now I've been posting my evidence **EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR FOR
YEARS** as a simple Google of the above four news groups will prove to
anyone who really wants to know.
If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for such a
prolonged period?
If creation is right, WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU OR ANY OTHER
CREATIONIST TO POST EVEN ONE ITEM OF SCIENCE WHICH POSITIVELY SUPPORTS
A CREATION?
I invite everyone reading this, creationist, evolutionist, and fence-
sitter alike to ponder that and draw their own conclusions.
Budikka
Andrew
You obviously did not read her post where she stated the opposite.
Dave Oldridge
news:gtvhbb$v81$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>>> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
>>> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
>>> evolution.
>>
>> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians
>> define creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as
>> 14.5 billion years old.
>
>I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>
>Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
>(unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
Ken's Christianity is a long way from orthodox and his shrill insistence
on false witness in support of his version of creation is actually sinful
and heretical.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Dave Oldridge
news:423692d8-9cc5-4090...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>On May 7, 3:46�pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>> > On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>> > <budik...@netscape.
>net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>> >> Creationists do nothing to support their position. �Their entire
>> >> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence
>> >> for evolution.
>>
>> > Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. �We
>> > Christians
> define
>> > creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5
>> > bil
>lion
>> > years old.
>>
>> I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>>
>> Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
>> (unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
>
>Old age Creationist/Christians and Young age Creationist/Christians
>often argue extraneous issues ; what all Christians do believe in is
>the Creator of the Universe and that he came to earth in the person of
>Jesus Christ as corroborated by christian as well as secular
>scientific evidences . Many atheists are at odds on various
There is no need to invent secular scientific evidence of Jesus Christ.
Faith is the important word there. But it is heterodox to Christian
teaching to invent cunning lies about science in order to deceive
ignorant people for cash, social and political rewards.
What atheists do, or do not do, is irrelevant to this issue.
thomas p.
Because it doesn't exist. Of course that doesn't stop you from reading it.
thomas p.
"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:qddhd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
Is the Pope Catholic?
Elijahovah
stored electronic impulses is why both sides will literally
physically drop dead and die. The world has no room nor
space to include this crap of vulgarity fits stored as permanent
importance by Google who milks billions of dollars laughing their
ass off.
As for the topic both sides are liars. Because both sides will claim
that a 6000 year old human existence means the planet must
be 6000 years old too. They are not the same text and it is the
spirit of Satan who inspires both evolutionary atheists and
creation scientists to say the same thing that 6000 years
is or must or is being claimed as both.
Moses says so that Satan said to Eve isn't it true that
you cannot eat of all fruit trees. It is an expanded lie
to win an argument. You cannot win easily claiming man
is much older than 6000 years, you have to make man a monkey
evolving to attempt the millions of years claim, and yet you decide
to win by saying nope we atheists beleive all creationists are
claiming Earth and sun are 6000 years old. The ones who claim
everything else is 6000 are not true Christians because Jesus
advocated truth not religious myth nor religious traditions.
Jesus accepted the definition of pagan religion not as other
religions outside Jews but as anything false because it was
embellished and molded as religious powers chose to mold it.
Such are not true worshippers of Jehovah nor are they followers
of worshipping Jehovah (predictable cause and effect revealing
intent and purposes of what he wants and for us and as moral
orders and guidlines for us) as Jesus sets the example being a christ
in how to worship jehovah, how to know jehovah, how to predict
jehovah.
The amizaduga texts of Venus prove Adam is 6000 years old because
while they are honored by existence as 2400 years
(4025 -1626 BC)
expecting 3600 future years
(1625 BC to 1975 AD)
this is confrimed by the errors in all chronologies
that of a 5200 BC Adam as 3600 +2400
5200 BC -1601 BC = Babylon in year 3600 (beleived as last year of 300)
1600 BC to 800 AD = Catholic kingdom accepted in 2400 years
5500 BC -1901 BC =Ur Chaldea's last year or Babylon's 1st year of 300
as year 3600
1900 BC to 500 AD = the end of world expected in India
and expected in Scandanavian Nordic countries in 2400 years
5370 -1770 BC =year 3600 of Mayan belief of Tower of Babel
1770 BC to 630 AD = 2400 years to king Pacal Shield Votan
declared as christ king for another 52 years and depicted as
first to go to heaven.
Confirmation of this Mayan creation of Adam in 5370 BC as
a 1200-year Venus exists in more than the match of 1770 BC
as Adam's true year 2256 (4025-1770 BC)
where this year 1770 BC
is claimed by Maya to be not year 2256 but as 3600
and Noah's true year 1200 (2970-1770 BC)
and is claimed by Maya to not be Noahs 1200 but as 1344
that confirmation exists as Adams 2256
being a Mayan 5370- 3114 BC Flood
instead of 4025 -1770 BC which is 600 years after Flood.
That confirmation then also exists as Noahs 1344
regarded as Flood 3114- 1770 BC believing that 1770 BC
are Venus tablets of Hamurabi in 1770 BC not Amizaduga
or are Amizaduga in 1770 BC because it is year 1344
after the 3114 BC Flood. But the truth is 1626 BC is
Noahs year 1344 from his birth 2970 BC thru 2370 BC Flood
to Amizaduga's death in 1626 BC
completing the tablets in 1625 BC.
Thus the Adams 2256 and Noahs 1344 are put end to end
from 5370 BC to 3114 BC Flood to 1770 BC to total 3600
when in fact they total 2400 because the year 2256
is 600 after the Flood, and the year 1344 overlaps it by
1200 years from 2970-1770 BC making this year 1344 as
only 144 years after Hamurabi being Amizaduga 1626 BC.
FURTHER confirmation is the end of the world before 3114 BC
is NOT a previous 5200 years of 360 days (5125 years)
but rather Spinden finds that 260 years earlier is an epoch of
3374 BC which is marked in Genesis by the fact that Peleg
died in Adams year 1996 being 260 years before year 2256
which is the death of Nimrod in the year of baby Judah's
birth in Syria. And further this Mayan year is confirmed by name
of year, it is the year that turned into MONKEY when men
panicked from a flood of death (short longevity =2030 BC)
and so scattered like monkeys to save themselves from Ur's
mass suicide (2029 BC) in year 1996 being 260 years before
year 2256 (1770 BC) just as Spinden's epoch or end of world
is 3374 BC (1996 AM) being 260 years before Mayan Flood
3114 BC (2256 AM).
So here we have three false Venus tablet dates around this
while planet in every culture as a false year 3600
1600 BC and 1900 BC and 1770 BC
verifying the true 1626 BC as being year 2400 of Adam.
You cannot get truer than this, as Jesus said a dead man
could come to life and these people would still not beleive
(not the miracle, nor the words of the dead man saying he
is king Amizaduga). Most scientists and most creationists
find only themselves profound and so others who are
so profound in their eyes are people who are just like
themselves as they look in the mirror saying aint i so right.
Both sides lose; both will not predict the hour; theose
predicting the hour win as they see all other people sadly
die in the billions not understanding the truth of the warning.
Does no good for science to say see we predicted this
asteroid if they are the ones all dying from its impact and
a religion (one religion) is what saved those who live thru it.
ELIJAH HERE ushering the bride to heaven,
she gives her blood to inspire flesh to live thru this.
See the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world,
the Lamb that was one is soon to be 144,001
Budikka
> "Cory Albrecht" wrote in messagenews:bbdhd6x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:19ab749e-09fe-4b09...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that there's a god and
> >>> that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
> >>> wrong you are. Deal?
>
> >> Why would you ask if you are convinced that you already know the answer?
>
> > Because, Andrew, Buddika has something which you lack - the honesty
> > which allows Buddika to be open minded to being shown wrong.
>
> You obviously did not read her post where she stated the opposite.
Another LIE. I said I would show you were you were wrong. Go ahead
and post your positive scientific evidence for a creation and you'll
see what I meant. Or admit that you're simply LYING about even having
any evidence to begin with. That's the inevitable conclusion I will
make public if you fail to produce this evidence you keep claiming you
have.
Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Cory Albrecht" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "Budikka" wrote:
>> >>> Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that there's a god and
>> >>> that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
>> >>> wrong you are. Deal?
>>
>> >> Why would you ask if you are convinced that you already know the answer?
>>
>> > Because, Andrew, Buddika has something which you lack - the honesty
>> > which allows Buddika to be open minded to being shown wrong.
>>
>> You obviously did not read her post where she stated the opposite.
>
> Another LIE. I said I would show you were you were wrong.
Do you think that mean that you have the honesty and humility which allows
you to be open minded and willing to being shown where you are wrong, as
Cory says? If so, then I was lying. If no, then you (and Cory) are lying.
Which one is it??
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew
> If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
> effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
> such a prolonged period?
New theories of the impossible, but not new science.
"It is now well known that the spontaneous
generation of life in our present ecosystem
is impossible." http://micurl.com/hwqmk6
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Ken" wrote:
>>> Fuck you and fuck your delusional imaginary sky fairy,
>>> "Ken"
>>> ___________________________________________
>>>
>>> It appears that atheists are a very sad and unhappy folk.
>>>
>>> Also I notice that they can get angry and agitated when
>>> confronted with truth that exposes their false position.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless God loves them and offers to give them
>>> His peace which passes all understanding and an un-
>>> speakable joy that they have never known.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> Still waiting for you to furnish evidence that *any*
>> god actually exists, Andrew. Got any? ("SkyEyes")
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Tell us exactly what you would do with this evidence.
>
> What does it matter what she would do with the evidence?
>
> Can you provide it or not? Why do you always tapdance
> away like this when somebody ask for evidence of God?
Perhaps you should give the evidence, Cory...since you
worship Him every Sunday morning when you go to the
house of worship.
Surely you wouldn't do that if you had no evidence!!
Andrew
Cory Albrecht
Sorry, Andrew, but I'm not the one claiming he has evidence for the
existence of God. So why are you trying to get out of ponying up the
evidence for which you claim, eh?
>
> Surely you wouldn't do that if you had no evidence!!
Remember that little discussion we had a while back about faith? It's
looking to me like you still don't understand what it actually is.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:f5e9d079-5a59-4822...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>> If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
>> effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
>> such a prolonged period?
>
>New theories of the impossible, but not new science.
Why do you worship ignorance?
>"It is now well known that the spontaneous
> generation of life in our present ecosystem
> is impossible." http://micurl.com/hwqmk6
I guess you are too stubborn to read your own signature. What a fool you
are.
Tony Wilson
do you know? Maybe another civilization on a distant planet "seeded" earth.
You're in no position to rule that out. Unless of course, you've been
everywhere in the universe and know everything there is to know. And that is
not one of your worries, believe me.
John Baker
<tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:tpidnVZtcrtvp5rX...@earthlink.com...
>> "Budikka" wrote in message
>news:f5e9d079-5a59-4822...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
>> > effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
>> > such a prolonged period?
>>
>> New theories of the impossible, but not new science.
>>
>>
>> "It is now well known that the spontaneous
>> generation of life in our present ecosystem
>> is impossible." http://micurl.com/hwqmk6
>>
>>
>Just because it hasn't been observed yet doesn't mean it's impossible. How
>do you know? Maybe another civilization on a distant planet "seeded" earth.
But then who seeded the seeders?
John Baker
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:f5e9d079-5a59-4822...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>> If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
>> effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
>> such a prolonged period?
>
>New theories of the impossible,
If abiogenesis was impossible, Skippy, you and I wouldn't be here to
argue about it.
>but not new science.
You wouldn't know science if it walked up and slapped you.
>
>
>"It is now well known that the spontaneous
> generation of life in our present ecosystem
> is impossible." http://micurl.com/hwqmk6
I note the significance of the phrase "in our present ecosystem" has,
like most of reality, managed to elude you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Profit-of-Gloom
> Notice that Ken proves my point. Nevertheless God loves him and
> offers to give him His peace which passes all understanding and an
> unspeakable joy that he has never known.
>
What is an "unspeakable joy?"
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 13:37:05 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message news:f5e9d079-5a59-4822...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
>>> effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
>>> such a prolonged period?
>>
>>New theories of the impossible,
>
>If abiogenesis was impossible, Skippy, you and I wouldn't be here to
>argue about it.
True, but Andrew has made himself incapable of learning or thinking
logically.
>>but not new science.
>
>You wouldn't know science if it walked up and slapped you.
>
>>
>>
>>"It is now well known that the spontaneous
>> generation of life in our present ecosystem
>> is impossible." http://micurl.com/hwqmk6
>
>I note the significance of the phrase "in our present ecosystem" has,
>like most of reality, managed to elude you.
It is interesting that the author of that line is more honest than the
average creationist. Still, rational people do not use irrational
sources and no creationist website has ever been rational. Maybe that is
why Andrew decided that he had to hide the source
<http://creationwiki.org/Abiogenesis> of the quote.
Andrew makes me glad that I awoke from the stupor of religion.
XaurreauX
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:24:39 -0400, "Tony Wilson"
> But then who seeded the seeders?
It was probably someone pretty seedy.
Cory Albrecht
> Both sides lose; both will not predict the hour; theose
> predicting the hour win as they see all other people sadly
> die in the billions not understanding the truth of the warning.
> Does no good for science to say see we predicted this
> asteroid if they are the ones all dying from its impact and
> a religion (one religion) is what saved those who live thru it.
Yeah, you tried predicting that the asteroid would be here at Easter,
but you were wrong on that and billions of people did not die.
You are failed prophet, Elijahovah.
Cory Albrecht
I guess we all evolved on the wrong side of the tracks, then. Or at
least that's what the creationists seem to think.
curtjester1
wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
> >> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
> >> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
> >> evolution.
>
> > Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
> > creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
> > years old.
>
> I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>
> Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
> (unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
Amazing that statements like these can be made when universe/earth
numbers have had a wide array of theorizing in the scientific
community as well. In Evolution alone I think there are something
like a 100 differing theories of how it might be done or have taken
place. The amazing thing about why one would put credence in a theory
that no one has seen or can see right now...that being how life arose
on this planet via any provable scientific evolutionary theory.
Creationists just marvel at the end results and apparent planning and
scratch their heads at why people would invest time theorizing
something that has never supported their cause.
CJ
Budikka
http://tinyurl.com/cl7lrf
You don't have another thing to say until and unless you bring on the
evidence.
End of story. Case closed.
Budikka
Budikka
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:2ead9f72-14a8-42c6...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Cory Albrecht" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka" wrote:
> >> >>> Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that there's a god and
> >> >>> that he loves everyone? Post it right here and then I'll prove how
> >> >>> wrong you are. Deal?
>
> >> >> Why would you ask if you are convinced that you already know the answer?
>
> >> > Because, Andrew, Buddika has something which you lack - the honesty
> >> > which allows Buddika to be open minded to being shown wrong.
>
> >> You obviously did not read her post where she stated the opposite.
>
> > Another LIE. I said I would show you were you were wrong.
>
> Do you think that mean that you have the honesty and humility which allows
> you to be open minded and willing to being shown where you are wrong
Let's put it to the test, shall we? We shall, in successive turns,
you and I, post one item of positive scientific evidence for our
position. You go first since you are the one who claims to have
irrefutable evidence.
When you've posted your *ONE* *ITEM* of *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC*
evidence *FOR* creation, then I shall post a likewise item for my
position.
Then it will be your turn again. Each item must be different form the
last one.
Let's see who runs out first.
The loser agrees that the winner's position is the correct one.
Do you agree? If you accept my challenge, then go ahead and post your
first item right here. I will respond in kind.
The ball is in your court. Your failure to post any evidence will be
taken by everyone who reads as *irrefutable evidence* that you have no
evidence, which is what I've maintained all along.
This is your chance to prove us all wrong. Will you take it? Let's
see.
Budikka
Budikka
> > If abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, how am I able to so
> > effortlessly and regularly post new science on the topic for
> > such a prolonged period?
>
> New theories of the impossible
Where is your scientific evidence that abiogenesis is impossible? Not
your opinion, not your whining about the abundance of scientific
evidence there is for abiogenesis, but your positive scientific
evidence which shows abiogenesis is impossible. Where is it?
Or is this yet another LIE from you?
", but not new science.
I posted this on April 17th:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0402
You posted messages in that same thread. Now you're LYING that I
never posted this or any other new evidence on abiogenesis. Why is
that?
Why is it that I can keep positing evidence, but you are forced to
keep LYING?
If you're right and I'm wrong, why is it that *I* can keep posting new
items of scientific evidence regularly, and you cannot post even
**ONE** item for your position?
The abstract of the above URL says, "Of the twenty amino acids used in
proteins, ten were formed in Miller's atmospheric discharge
experiments. The two other major proposed sources of prebiotic amino
acid synthesis include formation in hydrothermal vents and delivery to
Earth via meteorites. We combine observational and experimental data
of amino acid frequencies formed by these diverse mechanisms and show
that, regardless of the source, these ten early amino acids can be
ranked in order of decreasing abundance in prebiotic contexts. This
order can be predicted by thermodynamics. The relative abundances of
the early amino acids were most likely reflected in the composition of
the first proteins at the time the genetic code originated. The
remaining amino acids were incorporated into proteins after pathways
for their biochemical synthesis evolved. This is consistent with
theories of the evolution of the genetic code by stepwise addition of
new amino acids. These are hints that key aspects of early
biochemistry may be universal"
This is evidence for abiogenesis. FACT. Now where is your evidence
for creation?
You cannot present even one item, can you?
So, failing that, as you always do, where is your scientific evidence
that overturns the material I presented? Where is your science which
proves that this *doesn't* constitute evidence for abiogenesis?
Your failure to provide any will be your open admission t at you LIED.
And I don't want your irrelevant whining about "they didn't make
life". This is not about scientists making life and it never has
been. It's about the scientific feasibility of abiogenesis. We're
discussing who has the evidence. I do. You do not.
Now what is the scientific position again? That's right. The
scientific position is the one with the evidence.
Now what is the blind religious position again? That's right. The
blind religious position is the one with zero evidence.
Guess which is my position and which is yours.
Now who is LYING here?
Budikka
Budikka
> Perhaps you should give the evidence, Cory
Coryu isn;t on trial here. Youy are.
Now why is it that you keep *saying8 you ahve evidence* but
Budikka
Budikka
Cory isn't the one claiming to have "irrefutable evidence". **YOU**
are.
Let's put it to the test, shall we? We shall, in successive turns,
you and I, post one item of positive scientific evidence for our
position. I shall post positive scientific evidence for abiogenesis
and evolution, you shall post it for creation.
By positive scientific evidence I mean evidence of scientific nature,
the only conclusion we can draw from which is that our own position is
the correct one.
As an example, you cannot, as Idiot Duke does, claim that the Big Bang
is positive scientific evidence for a creator, because the Big Bang is
not evidence in favor of one side or the other, it's just a fact of
nature. The only way to show it is evidence for a creator would be to
show that something triggered the Big Bang which could not have had a
natural cause.
You go first since you are the one who has been claiming that you have
irrefutable evidence.
When you've posted your *ONE* *ITEM* of *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC*
evidence *FOR* creation, then I shall post a likewise item for my
position.
Then it will be your turn again. Each item must be different from the
previous ones posted.
Let's see who runs out first.
The loser agrees that the winner's position is the scientifically
correct one - i.e. that it has the evidence.
Do you agree? If you accept my challenge, then go ahead and post your
first item right here. I will respond in kind. The ball is in your
court. I've been posting evidence regualrly, and I'm prepared to post
more. You have yet to post even one item of positive science for your
position. That's why you need to go first.
Your failure to post anything relevant will be taken by everyone who
reads as *irrefutable evidence* that you have nothing, which is what
robt shepherd
question, even for those who are congenial to some INTELLIGENT DESIGN
rubric.
Take a look: the Hebrew (Genesis) account, summarizing creation, is
fine, and certainly estimable. But it is hardly the only worthwhile or
venerable creation myth extant, which survives down to our time.
There are innumerable beautiful and inspiring creation myths, which
have been culled from just as many cultures, or distilled from oral
narratives, or committed into writing in more recent times, which are
no less instructive than
the Hebrew version found in Genesis.
Tim Miller
> On May 7, 4:46 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Here you see the difference between science and creationism.
>>>> Creationists do nothing to support their position. Their entire
>>>> "science" consists of whining about all the scientific evidence for
>>>> evolution.
>>> Creationism as YOU define it is a 6000 year old earth. We Christians define
>>> creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe as 14.5 billion
>>> years old.
>> I love it when you xtians can't even agree on your own fable!
>>
>> Ken Ham is certainly a one of you, and HE believes in it... and
>> (unlike you), HE has an actual DEGREE!
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
>
> Amazing that statements like these can be made when universe/earth
> numbers have had a wide array of theorizing in the scientific
> community as well. In Evolution alone I think there are something
> like a 100 differing theories of how it might be done or have taken
> place. The amazing thing about why one would put credence in a theory
> that no one has seen or can see right now...
You REALLY need to get to a museum, or pick up a beginning
biology book.
> that being how life arose
> on this planet via any provable scientific evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with the origin
of life... The really "amazing" thing is when you creationists
argue against things you obviously don't even UNDERSTAND.
SkyEyes
I have no quarrel with your assertion. I, for one, find much that
resonates in Native American creation mythology. I don't mind if
people have creation myths.
The problem lies with the christian fundamentalists who *insist* that
the biblical account of creation is literally true. They have to do
that, because if they don't, their recipe for "salvation" falls
apart. That's why they spend so much time in alt.atheism and
talk.origins trying to refute science.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
curtjester1
I am sorry but you are the 'scientists' that think that life arose and
have something to say on that through scientific means. That ball
will always be in your court, and you always hit it out of bounds.
(We don't know how the watch got put together, we just know that it
did, and it didn't do it by itself.)
CJ
John Smith
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73f4f652-690a-4b4d...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
CJ
*********************************************
If you mean "didn't do it by itself" to explain how (for example) a living
creature starts as one cell - end EVOLVES into a something ....we know that.
We know how, we know time tables, we know genetics etc. etc. etc..
If you mean "didn't do it by itself" as a counter to the actual laws of
physics and chemistry - we know a lot about that too ....... enough to know
IT CAN HAPPEN!
If you mean "didn't do it by itself" as though it were a choice, when
chemicals come together .............. you're nothing more than a fool.
If you mean "didn't do it by itself" you mean a "gawd" intervened .........
you're an even bigger fool ........ not having any evidence to support ANY
claim about and outside, fairy tale, explanation.
The burden is yours, since the evidence we ARE finding does NOT include your
warped delusions and totally unsuported assertions.
fasgnadh
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
#
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,
# alt.politics.communism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics
# Subject: Atheist infanticide
# - "most horrific political crime of the 20th century"
# Message-ID: <kvxKl.7613$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 07:27:12 GMT
#
# "Russia exonerates Tsar Nicholas II
#
# The Russian supreme court has ruled that the country's
# last tsar and his family must be recognised as victims
# of Soviet repression 90 years after they were executed
# by a Bolshevik firing squad.
#
#
# By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html
#
#
#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
#
#
# Tsar Nicholas II with his wife Tsarina Alexandra
# (background), the Tsaravitch (2nd from right)
# and his four daughters Photo: PA
#
# In an unexpected ruling, the court in Moscow declared
# that Nicholas II and the royal family had been killed
# illegally and are entitled to legal rehabilitation
# by the state.
#
# The decision brings to a close a decade-long campaign
# by the tsar's descendants to force the state to admit
# culpability for what many Russians regard as the single
# most horrific political crime of the 20th century."
#
#
# The children saw their father shot and "were stabbed
# with bayonets and then shot at close range in the head" by
# the big Brave atheists.
# Alexei was 13 and Anastasia 17
# - Massie, R, The Romanovs The Final Chapter, 6
# From: Budikka <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.politics.communism,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics
# Subject: Hey fasgnadh: Christian Infanticide: 276 Children Dead
# Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 02:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
<06bebb0c-c385-4d5a...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
#
# > the Russian Royal family with a handful of
# > children - who were Christians but behaved like despots
# >
# > Budikka
Where's the your evidence that a 12 year old child was a 'despot' (sic)?
> I never posted this or any other new evidence
> Why is that?
>
You are a lying shitpig?
> We're discussing who has the evidence.
Not you, clearly!
> The scientific position is the one with the evidence.
So your's is the Unscientific, irrational rant!
> Now who is LYING here?
>
> Budikka
Correct!
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because
they are embarrassed that they can't connect it. Not only cannot they
connect it, it's embarrassing that it should be the easiest and most
available for proof. So they get lost in the diversity of life, which
leads to speculation becoming dogma.
It's obvious that if an evolutionary tale were true that it would
connect to the first forms which we would call life.
CJ
Tim Miller
No, it's because abiogenesis and evolution are two completely
different things, fuckwit.
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:73f4f652-690a-4b4d...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 4:21 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > You already conceded your entire position here:http://tinyurl.com/cl7lrf
>
> > You don't have another thing to say until and unless you bring on the
> > evidence.
>
> > End of story. Case closed.
>
> > Budikka
>
> I am sorry but you are the 'scientists' that think that life arose and
> have something to say on that through scientific means. That ball
> will always be in your court, and you always hit it out of bounds.
> (We don't know how the watch got put together, we just know that it
> did, and it didn't do it by itself.)
>
> CJ
>
> *********************************************
>
> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" to explain how (for example) a living
> creature starts as one cell - end EVOLVES into a something ....we know that.
> We know how, we know time tables, we know genetics etc. etc. etc..
>
cell arriving or assembling, period.
> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" as a counter to the actual laws of
> physics and chemistry - we know a lot about that too ....... enough to know
> IT CAN HAPPEN!
>
That's the old, when it can't be proven theory, go to the optimistic,
cheerleading theory.
> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" as though it were a choice, when
> chemicals come together .............. you're nothing more than a fool.
>
No, only a fool would say randomness is the basis for life.
> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" you mean a "gawd" intervened .........
> you're an even bigger fool ........ not having any evidence to support ANY
> claim about and outside, fairy tale, explanation.
>
One can plug anything into they want to. Superior being, Intelligence
not from this world, other civilizations, seeding. The only fairy
tale is that someone on this earth has proposed that random acts and
chemicals (which are highly mathematical with physics) interacted to
form life on pure randomness.
> The burden is yours, since the evidence we ARE finding does NOT include your
> warped delusions and totally unsuported assertions.
There is no burden on Creationists. The end product is always the
proof with things complete and very sophistacatedly complex. The
burden is showing that natural phenomena had a way of creating life on
it's own, which really is the in the unsupported assertion category
you bring up. People here on earth associate products with assembly
and intelligence behind them. That's all creationists do, and if you
can't assemble your product without a designer, that ball will always
be in your court.
CJ
polymer
<snippage>
> The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
> theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because they
> are embarrassed that they can't connect it.
No, no, no. It is because the knowledge needed to deal with
this question does not require the same skill set.
Expertise in molecular biology, chemistry,
chemical biology, and expertise on the conditions of early earth
are what is required.
And, these experts have nothing to be "embarrassed" about,
either. Look here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=4961537793081085343&ei=lqN4Sd71C5XYqAOhyJyoBA&q=john+maynard+smith
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/
Hanczyc_and_Szostak_2004_COChemBio.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20061015000732/http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/
People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html
<snippage>
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:29:37 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> > The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
> > theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because they
> > are embarrassed that they can't connect it.
>
> No, no, no. It is because the knowledge needed to deal with
> this question does not require the same skill set.
> Expertise in molecular biology, chemistry,
> chemical biology, and expertise on the conditions of early earth
> are what is required.
>
syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
produce it?
> And, these experts have nothing to be "embarrassed" about,
> either. Look here:
>
Looking at your first link it looks like they are playing way ahead of
life and putting amino acids with DNA. That might be considered 'fun'
but it has nothing to do with making a highly complex, factory-like,
environment which the cell has with the DNA already intact. So if you
want to be real chemical and scientific, that needs to be explained,
and not frivilous experimenting which really has nothing to do with
seeing or even guessing on the how life was formed. Their statement
is all too telling in the first part of their article:
"These proto-cells didn't have any sophisticated cellular functions".
CJ
polymer
<snippage>
>All that produces no functioning life. If one is to believe that
>syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
>are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
>produce it?
How is some being complex enough to produce it going to
come into being first so that it can produce a life less
complex than it is? Your denials of science do not explain
anything whatever.
>Looking at your first link it looks like they are playing way ahead of
>life and putting amino acids with DNA. That might be considered 'fun'
>but it has nothing to do with making a highly complex, factory-like,
>environment which the cell has with the DNA already intact.
Experiments that produce the precursors of DNA have already
succeeded:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-
miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
>So if you
>want to be real chemical and scientific,
"...real chemical and scientific..."
That's an odd way to put it.
What is your educational level?
Am I talking to a frigging idiot middle school
student?
> that needs to be explained,
>and not frivilous experimenting which really has nothing to do with
>seeing or even guessing on the how life was formed. Their statement
>is all too telling in the first part of their article:
>"These proto-cells didn't have any sophisticated cellular functions".
That's where evolution begins to come in handy for an explanation.
And you've only attempted to answer the first article.
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On May 12, 2:03�am, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:73f4f652-690a-4b4d...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 11, 4:21 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
snip
>> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" you mean a "gawd" intervened .........
>> you're an even bigger fool ........ not having any evidence to support ANY
>> claim about and outside, fairy tale, explanation.
>>
>One can plug anything into they want to. Superior being, Intelligence
>not from this world, other civilizations, seeding. The only fairy
>tale is that someone on this earth has proposed that random acts and
>chemicals (which are highly mathematical with physics) interacted to
>form life on pure randomness.
>
Of course there is one tiny problem with that.
You claim that life on earth had to be created by some outside agency, but you
have no evidence as to what that agency might be.
In your efforts to have your evolution bashing arguments treated as a scientific
theory, and brought into the science classroom, you have back-pedaled like
blazes, away from "God centred Creation", and have invented "Intelligent
Design".
You have substituted various explanations, superior intelligence, alien seeding,
etc, denying that your designer has to be God, or a god, but could as well be
some super intelligent ET.
But as I said, there is just one tiny flaw; You are unable to tell us where any
of your proposed designers came from.
One of your sillier arguments against evolution is irreducible complexity, yet
you hit a similar wall with your superior intelligence argument.
Somewhere back there, billions of years ago, the life that was to become your
first "Superior Intelligence": Where did that come from?
And before you say "goddidit", just remember that exactly the same applies to
your god: Where did IT come from?
Ultimately, you are left with special pleading, of the "God was always there",
variety, to explain it.
So tell us: If something as big, as intelligent, as powerful, as obviously
complex, as God, could just have "always existed", then why not the much
simpler, raw energy, from which the universe as we know it formed.
And if the raw energy could have "just existed", why could life NOT have
evolved?
You all like to argue that it is a mathematical impossibility, for abiogenesis
to have occurred, but you never explain why, you never produce the figures upon
which you base your assertions.
Try explaining EXACTLY why abiogenesis, is impossible.
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
>theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because
>they are embarrassed that they can't connect it. Not only cannot they
>connect it, it's embarrassing that it should be the easiest and most
>available for proof. So they get lost in the diversity of life, which
>leads to speculation becoming dogma.
>It's obvious that if an evolutionary tale were true that it would
>connect to the first forms which we would call life.
Two totally different subjects.
Abiogenesis, is about hoe life began, evolution is about what it did next.
Even if it turned out to be true, that Earth was seeded with life, from some
external source, billions of years ago, it would not make one iota of difference
to evolution theory.
How life got here is irrelevant, evolution is about what that life did, and what
happened to it.
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>All that produces no functioning life.
You got evidence to support that, or is it just more, assertion from
incredulity.
>If one is to believe that
>syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
>are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
>produce it?
Does it never occur to you that a "a volatile, chaotic earth", could have been
the "perfect conditions"?
fasgnadh
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
A bunch of lies, which have been snipped to protect the innocence of the
young athiests here.
Budikka
http://tinyurl.com/cl7lrf
You don't have another thing to say until and unless you bring on the
evidence. Do scientists have evidence for abiogenesis and evolution?
Yes, they have a wealth of positive scientific evidence for
abiogenesis and for evolution.
Does curtjester1 have any positive scientific evidence for creation?
No, he doesn't have even one tiny item of evidence to offer, yet he
stupidly and arrogantly tries to dictate that we should toss out all
the evidence we do have just so this spoiled brat moron can get his
own way!
FUCK YOU CURTJESTER1
Lord Vetinari
news:f5d34bfa-ed62-480d...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
I don't think you really want to fuck that.
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:15:55 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> >All that produces no functioning life. If one is to believe that
> >syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
> >are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
> >produce it?
>
> How is some being complex enough to produce it going to
> come into being first so that it can produce a life less
> complex than it is? Your denials of science do not explain
> anything whatever.
>
it says matter always existed...Einsein's matter cannot be created or
destroyed axiom (only changes form).
> >Looking at your first link it looks like they are playing way ahead of
> >life and putting amino acids with DNA. That might be considered 'fun'
> >but it has nothing to do with making a highly complex, factory-like,
> >environment which the cell has with the DNA already intact.
>
> Experiments that produce the precursors of DNA have already
> succeeded:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-
> miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
>
Yes, but little did they tell you that those don't produce life.
Little did Miller and Urey know that life is more complex than they
thought.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
> >So if you
> >want to be real chemical and scientific,
>
> "...real chemical and scientific..."
> That's an odd way to put it.
> What is your educational level?
> Am I talking to a frigging idiot middle school
> student?
>
What would it matter when there is NO educated explanation for the
formation of life?
> > that needs to be explained,
> >and not frivilous experimenting which really has nothing to do with
> >seeing or even guessing on the how life was formed. Their statement
> >is all too telling in the first part of their article:
> >"These proto-cells didn't have any sophisticated cellular functions".
>
> That's where evolution begins to come in handy for an explanation.
> And you've only attempted to answer the first article.
It's not up to me to read articles. I just pointed out your article
doesn't show in any shape or form that scienftic discovery or thought
has uncovered a natural process that would produce it much less
produce it when stacked unnatural things are used. Evolution isn't a
handy explanation. It's a mask of an explanation when it can't come
up with proof.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 12, 2:03 am, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:73f4f652-690a-4b4d...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 11, 4:21 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> snip
> >> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" you mean a "gawd" intervened .........
> >> you're an even bigger fool ........ not having any evidence to support ANY
> >> claim about and outside, fairy tale, explanation.
>
> >One can plug anything into they want to. Superior being, Intelligence
> >not from this world, other civilizations, seeding. The only fairy
> >tale is that someone on this earth has proposed that random acts and
> >chemicals (which are highly mathematical with physics) interacted to
> >form life on pure randomness.
>
> Of course there is one tiny problem with that.
>
> You claim that life on earth had to be created by some outside agency, but you
> have no evidence as to what that agency might be.
>
has to show that it was assembled. Obviously you can't show that it
wasn't assembled by an outside source since you can't show assembly
from natural phenomena or experimentation. All things that are
produced here on earth get a Maker status whether and indivudual or a
corporation is doing it. They don't assemble near the complex nature
of what life forms and their complex systems that depend on each other
have. It really surprises me that people can't get it through there
heads that this isn't such a surprising leap of logic that a Maker did
this.
> In your efforts to have your evolution bashing arguments treated as a scientific
> theory, and brought into the science classroom, you have back-pedaled like
> blazes, away from "God centred Creation", and have invented "Intelligent
> Design".
> You have substituted various explanations, superior intelligence, alien seeding,
> etc, denying that your designer has to be God, or a god, but could as well be
> some super intelligent ET.
>
I actually don't like these matters even discussed in a classroom
among a lot of other theoretical things. I think Intelligent Designer
is just generic enough to satisfy everyone without getting religion as
a must into the conversation.
> But as I said, there is just one tiny flaw; You are unable to tell us where any
> of your proposed designers came from.
>
Why is where an interest? The universe is a big piece of property,
and well there could be a beyond that.
> One of your sillier arguments against evolution is irreducible complexity, yet
> you hit a similar wall with your superior intelligence argument.
>
> Somewhere back there, billions of years ago, the life that was to become your
> first "Superior Intelligence": Where did that come from?
>
It didn't have to "come from". It could have always been there. One
cannot prove that there was a 'nothing', ever.
> And before you say "goddidit", just remember that exactly the same applies to
> your god: Where did IT come from?
> Ultimately, you are left with special pleading, of the "God was always there",
> variety, to explain it.
>
Well, it's surely beats god-didn't-do-it. There is nothing to suggest
that randomness alone made up what we see on earth today.
> So tell us: If something as big, as intelligent, as powerful, as obviously
> complex, as God, could just have "always existed", then why not the much
> simpler, raw energy, from which the universe as we know it formed.
>
You don't know that the universe "formed". The Big Bang could have
been God playing billiards, and he just broke the rack and scattered
some matter.
> And if the raw energy could have "just existed", why could life NOT have
> evolved?
>
You would have to define "evolved" It's like asking if a Creator
created, how and how long he created.
> You all like to argue that it is a mathematical impossibility, for abiogenesis
> to have occurred, but you never explain why, you never produce the figures upon
> which you base your assertions.
>
There are several 'in the field' that like to assign numbers to that.
A lot of that stuff is 10 to the google power stuff. None of it comes
back as 'likely' with ingredia and numbers.
> Try explaining EXACTLY why abiogenesis, is impossible.- Hide quoted text -
>
There is a number that some have used to define as 1 in a longshot as
"never ever gonna happen" It's something like 10 to the 30th power.
What ever the number could be, it's NOT a likely number. Why would
one want to put their money on the line on a bet that has no good
chance of winning?
CJ
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:29:37 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
> >theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because
> >they are embarrassed that they can't connect it. Not only cannot they
> >connect it, it's embarrassing that it should be the easiest and most
> >available for proof. So they get lost in the diversity of life, which
> >leads to speculation becoming dogma.
> >It's obvious that if an evolutionary tale were true that it would
> >connect to the first forms which we would call life.
>
> Two totally different subjects.
>
> Abiogenesis, is about hoe life began, evolution is about what it did next.
>
Evolution concerns itself mostly with the diversity of life. If you
can divorce first life as not being 'an ancestor' to the diversity, I
would think Houston has a problem.
> Even if it turned out to be true, that Earth was seeded with life, from some
> external source, billions of years ago, it would not make one iota of difference
> to evolution theory.
>
Well some opine that not all life forms are 'cousins' of all other
life forms.
> How life got here is irrelevant, evolution is about what that life did, and what
> happened to it.
The simple life should be the easiest to see evolutionary-wise. Just
don't see it.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All that produces no functioning life.
>
> You got evidence to support that, or is it just more, assertion from
> incredulity.
>
> >If one is to believe that
> >syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
> >are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
> >produce it?
>
> Does it never occur to you that a "a volatile, chaotic earth", could have been
> the "perfect conditions"?
Perfect for what? It's not like an Intelligent Designer couldn't have
had a volatile, chaotic earth to draw for it's creating process, is
it? If you believe in the randomness of the chaotic conditions, at
least you should prove that chaos does act in such a way instead of
just assuming that it does and making fun of people that say that it's
not likely.
CJ
curtjester1
Science by cheerleading at it's best, folks.
CJ
polymer
> On May 12, 1:19 pm, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:15:55 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> >All that produces no functioning life. If one is to believe that
>> >syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
>> >are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
>> >produce it?
>>
>> How is some being complex enough to produce it going to come into being
>> first so that it can produce a life less complex than it is? Your
>> denials of science do not explain anything whatever.
>>
> There is nothing in science that says there was a beginning. In fact it
> says matter always existed...Einsein's matter cannot be created or
> destroyed axiom (only changes form).
So now you're not claiming that god exists?
Good boy.
>
>> >Looking at your first link it looks like they are playing way ahead of
>> >life and putting amino acids with DNA. That might be considered 'fun'
>> >but it has nothing to do with making a highly complex, factory-like,
>> >environment which the cell has with the DNA already intact.
>>
>> Experiments that produce the precursors of DNA have already
>> succeeded:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-
soup-urey-
>> miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
>>
> Yes, but little did they tell you that those don't produce life.
They never claimed that the experiment
produced life. Lie away, kiddo, you know very well
that they never claimed that it did.
> Little
> did Miller and Urey know that life is more complex than they thought.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
>
>> >So if you
>> >want to be real chemical and scientific,
>>
>> "...real chemical and scientific..."
>> That's an odd way to put it.
>> What is your educational level?
>> Am I talking to a frigging idiot middle school student?
>>
>>
> What would it matter when there is NO educated explanation for the
> formation of life?
Not in full detail yet, but they are actually conducting
experiments that get closer and closer -- versus
supernatural bunk.
>
>> > that needs to be explained,
>> >and not frivilous experimenting which really has nothing to do with
>> >seeing or even guessing on the how life was formed. Their statement
>> >is all too telling in the first part of their article: "These
>> >proto-cells didn't have any sophisticated cellular functions".
>>
>> That's where evolution begins to come in handy for an explanation. And
>> you've only attempted to answer the first article.
>
> It's not up to me to read articles. I just pointed out your article
> doesn't show in any shape or form that scienftic discovery or thought
> has uncovered a natural process that would produce it much less produce
> it when stacked unnatural things are used. Evolution isn't a handy
> explanation. It's a mask of an explanation when it can't come up with
> proof.
Evolution does not treat of this. Evolution has to do with
the modifications of life forms once they are here.
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:23:02 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
> > On May 12, 1:19 pm, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:15:55 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> <snippage>
>
> >> >All that produces no functioning life. If one is to believe that
> >> >syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
> >> >are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
> >> >produce it?
>
> >> How is some being complex enough to produce it going to come into being
> >> first so that it can produce a life less complex than it is? Your
> >> denials of science do not explain anything whatever.
>
> > There is nothing in science that says there was a beginning. In fact it
> > says matter always existed...Einsein's matter cannot be created or
> > destroyed axiom (only changes form).
>
> So now you're not claiming that god exists?
> Good boy.
>
>
wasn't a beginning, of course a god could exist, and could have always
existed.
>
>
>
> >> >Looking at your first link it looks like they are playing way ahead of
> >> >life and putting amino acids with DNA. That might be considered 'fun'
> >> >but it has nothing to do with making a highly complex, factory-like,
> >> >environment which the cell has with the DNA already intact.
>
> >> Experiments that produce the precursors of DNA have already
> >> succeeded:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-
> soup-urey-
> >> miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
>
> > Yes, but little did they tell you that those don't produce life.
>
> They never claimed that the experiment
> produced life. Lie away, kiddo, you know very well
> that they never claimed that it did.
>
>
So why post or rely on these experiment/articles? If you read the
abiogenesis article on them from the previous post one would see that
not only do their experiments not produce life, they actually support
more that it did not occur randomly.
>
>
>
> > Little
> > did Miller and Urey know that life is more complex than they thought.
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
>
> >> >So if you
> >> >want to be real chemical and scientific,
>
> >> "...real chemical and scientific..."
> >> That's an odd way to put it.
> >> What is your educational level?
> >> Am I talking to a frigging idiot middle school student?
>
> > What would it matter when there is NO educated explanation for the
> > formation of life?
>
> Not in full detail yet, but they are actually conducting
> experiments that get closer and closer -- versus
> supernatural bunk.
>
>
Why do they keep experimenting ala Urey-Miller when they failed
miserably? The inaneness for such experimenting must not be based on
odds, or any likelihood at all, yet if they find something they can be
'superstars' of the science community...saying WE (the ones who seek
glory) have found 'it'. It's got you so deluded that you even think
they are 'CLOSER'. And when you discount "supernatural bunk", you are
saying in essence, I don't WANT an outside source for life's
arrivals. Of course eliminating that from the equation is NOT very
hypothetically sound if one wants to take in possibilities, is it?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > that needs to be explained,
> >> >and not frivilous experimenting which really has nothing to do with
> >> >seeing or even guessing on the how life was formed. Their statement
> >> >is all too telling in the first part of their article: "These
> >> >proto-cells didn't have any sophisticated cellular functions".
>
> >> That's where evolution begins to come in handy for an explanation. And
> >> you've only attempted to answer the first article.
>
> > It's not up to me to read articles. I just pointed out your article
> > doesn't show in any shape or form that scienftic discovery or thought
> > has uncovered a natural process that would produce it much less produce
> > it when stacked unnatural things are used. Evolution isn't a handy
> > explanation. It's a mask of an explanation when it can't come up with
> > proof.
>
> Evolution does not treat of this. Evolution has to do with
> the modifications of life forms once they are here.- Hide quoted text -
>
So you want to get into the cat was a dog vs. the cat was never a
dog. Have fun, but it has nothing to do with life's origins, and by
many people's standards, if evolution were the source of all life here
on earth, it would be easy to prove that it existed in the early forms
of life in the abiogenesis.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On May 12, 1:35�pm, dubh_gh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 12, 2:03�am, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:73f4f652-690a-4b4d...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On May 11, 4:21 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >> If you mean "didn't do it by itself" you mean a "gawd" intervened .........
>> >> you're an even bigger fool ........ not having any evidence to support ANY
>> >> claim about and outside, fairy tale, explanation.
>>
>> >One can plug anything into they want to. �Superior being, Intelligence
>> >not from this world, other civilizations, seeding. �The only fairy
>> >tale is that someone on this earth has proposed that random acts and
>> >chemicals (which are highly mathematical with physics) interacted to
>> >form life on pure randomness.
>>
>> Of course there is one tiny problem with that.
>>
>> You claim that life on earth had to be created by some outside agency, but you
>> have no evidence as to what that agency might be.
>>
>One doesn't have to show how or who or where the agency is. All one
>has to show that it was assembled.
Okay, do that.
>Obviously you can't show that it wasn't assembled by an outside source
>since you can't show assembly from natural phenomena or experimentation.
Irrelevant.
I don't have to, it is for you to show objective evidence in support of your
assertions.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
>All things that are
>produced here on earth get a Maker status whether and indivudual or a
>corporation is doing it. They don't assemble near the complex nature
>of what life forms and their complex systems that depend on each other
>have.
Irrelevant.
Besides, you are assuming your conclusion, that "life was created".
>It really surprises me that people can't get it through there
>heads that this isn't such a surprising leap of logic that a Maker did
>this.
>
Even though no smallest shred of evidence has ever been offered for the
existence of such a maker, and no smallest shred of evidence has ever been
offered that a maker was needed.
"I don't understand it, so goddidit", is NOT a logical step, it is a lazy step.
>> In your efforts to have your evolution bashing arguments treated as a scientific
>> theory, and brought into the science classroom, you have back-pedaled like
>> blazes, away from "God centred Creation", and have invented "Intelligent
>> Design".
>> You have substituted various explanations, superior intelligence, alien seeding,
>> etc, denying that your designer has to be God, or a god, but could as well be
>> some super intelligent ET.
>>
>I actually don't like these matters even discussed in a classroom
>among a lot of other theoretical things.
I can understand that, discussion is the last thing you want.
>I think Intelligent Designer
>is just generic enough to satisfy everyone without getting religion as
>a must into the conversation.
>
No. If you are going to teach it as a fact, you must support it with empirical
evidence.
>
>> But as I said, there is just one tiny flaw; You are unable to tell us where any
>> of your proposed designers came from.
>>
>Why is where an interest?
It would be evidence that such existed, or had existed.
>The universe is a big piece of property,
>and well there could be a beyond that.
>
Yes, but not big enough to hide your agenda, behind.
>> One of your sillier arguments against evolution is irreducible complexity, yet
>> you hit a similar wall with your superior intelligence argument.
>>
>> Somewhere back there, billions of years ago, the life that was to become your
>> first "Superior Intelligence": �Where did that come from?
>>
>It didn't have to "come from". It could have always been there.
That is called "special pleading", I mention it farther down.
> One
>cannot prove that there was a 'nothing', ever.
We don't have to, the burden of evidence is all yours.
To demand a logical fallacy, such as wanting us to prove a negative, is not only
dishonest, it shows that you cannot support your own claims.
>
>> And before you say "goddidit", just remember that exactly the same applies to
>> your god: Where did IT come from? �
>> Ultimately, you are left with special pleading, of the "God was always there",
>> variety, to explain it.
>>
>Well, it's surely beats god-didn't-do-it.
No it doesn't.
Claiming that something was done by magic, is not a viable explanation.
>There is nothing to suggest
>that randomness alone made up what we see on earth today.
>
No one has claimed that "randomness alone" did, that is just another creationist
red herring.
>
>> So tell us: If something as big, as intelligent, as powerful, as obviously
>> complex, as God, could just have "always existed", then why not the much
>> simpler, raw energy, from which the universe as we know it formed.
>>
>You don't know that the universe "formed". The Big Bang could have
>been God playing billiards, and he just broke the rack and scattered
>some matter.
Childish evasion.
Besides, there was no matter involved, not until some considerable time later,
somewhere between three minutes, and half an hour, and a hundred million years
before the first stars appeared.
>
>> And if the raw energy could have "just existed", why could life NOT have
>> evolved?
>>
>You would have to define "evolved"
More evasion.
evolve
n verb
1 develop gradually.
2 (of an organism or biological feature) develop over successive
generations by evolution.
3 Chemistry give off (gas or heat).
> It's like asking if a Creator
>created, how and how long he created.
Yet more evasion.
When you can't answer, why not just say so?
>
>> You all like to argue that it is a mathematical impossibility, for abiogenesis
>> to have occurred, but you never explain why, you never produce the figures upon
>> which you base your assertions.
>>
>There are several 'in the field' that like to assign numbers to that.
>A lot of that stuff is 10 to the google power stuff. None of it comes
>back as 'likely' with ingredia and numbers.
>
Word salad.
>
>> Try explaining EXACTLY why abiogenesis, is impossible.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>There is a number that some have used to define as 1 in a longshot as
>"never ever gonna happen" It's something like 10 to the 30th power.
>What ever the number could be, it's NOT a likely number. Why would
>one want to put their money on the line on a bet that has no good
>chance of winning?
>
So you don't know, yet still you argue the toss, and based in what?
Tour posts suggest nothing more than incredulity, and wishful thinking.
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On May 12, 1:45�pm, dubh_gh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All that produces no functioning life. �
>>
>> You got evidence to support that, or is it just more, assertion from
>> incredulity.
>>
>> >If one is to believe that
>> >syphoning perfect ingredia and perfect conditions for experimentation
>> >are not good enough, then how is a volatile, chaotic earth going to
>> >produce it?
>>
>> Does it never occur to you that a "a volatile, chaotic earth", could have been
>> the "perfect conditions"?
>
>Perfect for what? It's not like an Intelligent Designer couldn't have
>had a volatile, chaotic earth to draw for it's creating process, is
>it?
It is not like you have shown any evidence for the existence of a designer,
intelligent(highly questionable), or otherwise.
OTOH, we know pretty well, from the geological record, what the earth was like.
>If you believe in the randomness of the chaotic conditions, at
>least you should prove that chaos does act in such a way instead of
>just assuming that it does and making fun of people that say that it's
>not likely.
>
It is you that is harping on randomness; none of us are trying to make out that
chemical reactions are random.
...In fact, quite the opposite.
>CJ
dubh_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On May 12, 1:42�pm, dubh_gh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:29:37 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The reason people make these types of statements that evolutionary
>> >theory doesn't have anything to do with origins of life, is because
>> >they are embarrassed that they can't connect it. �Not only cannot they
>> >connect it, it's embarrassing that it should be the easiest and most
>> >available for proof. �So they get lost in the diversity of life, which
>> >leads to speculation becoming dogma.
>> >It's obvious that if an evolutionary tale were true that it would
>> >connect to the first forms which we would call life.
>>
>> Two totally different subjects.
>>
>It's two because they can't bridge their theories.
>
>> Abiogenesis, is about hoe life began, evolution is about what it did next.
>>
>Evolution concerns itself mostly with the diversity of life.
So evolution is something else that you know nothing about.
> If you
>can divorce first life as not being 'an ancestor' to the diversity, I
>would think Houston has a problem.
What does that mean?
>
>> Even if it turned out to be true, that Earth was seeded with life, from some
>> external source, billions of years ago, it would not make one iota of difference
>> to evolution theory.
>>
>Well some opine that not all life forms are 'cousins' of all other
>life forms.
>
And they may well be correct, but that doesn't disprove either evolution or
abiogenesis.
In fact, IMFFHO, it would do more the support both, than deny them.
polymer
> >So now you're not claiming that god exists?
> >Good boy.
>You would make a good politician, but quite contraire`. If there
>wasn't a beginning, of course a god could exist, and could have always
>existed.
Could isn't good enough. A Yeti _could_ be living in the
closet in your double-wide. After all, nobody's ever proved
there aren't Yetis!
<snippage>
>> They never claimed that the experiment
>> produced life. Lie away, kiddo, you know very well
>> that they never claimed that it did.
>So why post or rely on these experiment/articles?
>If you read the
>abiogenesis article on them from the previous post one would see that
>not only do their experiments not produce life, they actually support
>more that it did not occur randomly.
Chemical reactions are not random. I don't know why you
creationists continue to insist on randomness. Actual randomness
is actually very difficult to achieve. Even the simplest rules
are likely to quickly result in extreme complexity,
as experiments with cellular automita have proven. Randomness
has very little to do with it. But you yahoos keep pretending
that this hasn't been explained to you. You keep telling us
that we told you it came about randomly. Well, it didn't.
But there is absolutely no evidence that a god did it.
<snippage>
Why do they keep experimenting ala Urey-Miller when they failed
miserably? The inaneness for such experimenting must not be based on
odds, or any likelihood at all, yet if they find something they can be
'superstars' of the science community...saying WE (the ones who seek
glory) have found 'it'. It's got you so deluded that you even think
they are 'CLOSER'. And when you discount "supernatural bunk", you are
saying in essence, I don't WANT an outside source for life's
arrivals. Of course eliminating that from the equation is NOT very
hypothetically sound if one wants to take in possibilities, is it?
Bullshit. You have absolutely no experiment or evidence that backs
up your superstition _at_ _all_. You might as well be claiming that
a Yeti lives in the closet of your double wide -- except the situation
is even worse for you:
You _always_ have to explain how something got complex enough to
be the intelligence that created the universe -- _before_ s/he
created the universe.
<snippage>
>> Evolution does not treat of this. Evolution has to do with
>> the modifications of life forms once they are here.- Hide quoted text -
>So you want to get into the cat was a dog vs. the cat was never a
>dog.
Get into it? WTF are you talking about?
>Have fun, but it has nothing to do with life's origins,
It doesn't claim to, you idiot. It shows how life
developed once the simplest forms were here.
> and by
>many people's standards, if evolution were the source of all life
From Darwin forward, no major scientist has claimed that.
I keep telling you that, and you keep forgetting it a few
sentences later. Do you have Alzheimer disease? Are you not
actually a middle school student, but a demented old crock
writing from a nursing home.
Evolutionary theory does not treat of the origins of life.
Idiot.
curtjester1
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:40:27 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>
because people are paying for it and no one should be forced to listen
to something that has no bearing on making living life more
effecient. What a waste of time. Put it in an after school club if
one would be interested in such.
> >I think Intelligent Designer
> >is just generic enough to satisfy everyone without getting religion as
> >a must into the conversation.
>
> No. If you are going to teach it as a fact, you must support it with empirical
> evidence.
>
>
Why? I told you it's based on Logic and Faith. You can't be
scienfically objectionable when one isn't there to see all the
unravellings. Unfortunaley, you can't teach a fact that would
contradict not having a Creator, no matter how much you huff and puff.
>
> >> But as I said, there is just one tiny flaw; You are unable to tell us where any
> >> of your proposed designers came from.
>
> >Why is where an interest?
>
> It would be evidence that such existed, or had existed.
>
Evidence is subjective. Most feel we have enough. You want to see
the Creation on replay..have at it.
> >The universe is a big piece of property,
> >and well there could be a beyond that.
>
> Yes, but not big enough to hide your agenda, behind.
>
That isn't an agenda item. It just shows you can't say there was a
nothing, and something came from it...like you want to say.
> >> One of your sillier arguments against evolution is irreducible complexity, yet
> >> you hit a similar wall with your superior intelligence argument.
>
> >> Somewhere back there, billions of years ago, the life that was to become your
> >> first "Superior Intelligence": Where did that come from?
>
> >It didn't have to "come from". It could have always been there.
>
> That is called "special pleading", I mention it farther down.
>
Who cares where you mention it? You cannot say where and when
anything came about prior to the universe.
> > One
> >cannot prove that there was a 'nothing', ever.
>
> We don't have to, the burden of evidence is all yours.
>
It's already scientifically proven in principle. Matter is forever if
you can't get rid of it. The burden is on you to prove that at some
time matter didn't exist.
> To demand a logical fallacy, such as wanting us to prove a negative, is not only
> dishonest, it shows that you cannot support your own claims.
>
>
There is no negative involved. You simply cannot prove scientifically
especially that nothing ever existed. Don't even have to put superior
being into the equation. Something had to form the universe. You
can't define it.
>
> >> And before you say "goddidit", just remember that exactly the same applies to
> >> your god: Where did IT come from?
> >> Ultimately, you are left with special pleading, of the "God was always there",
> >> variety, to explain it.
>
> >Well, it's surely beats god-didn't-do-it.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
How so? Can you make any logical or scientific statement that god-
didn't-do-it?
> Claiming that something was done by magic, is not a viable explanation.
>
You can't even define magic or superior intelligence. All we know is
that human intelligence wanes compared to what made life. We humans
can't do it. Something else did.
> >There is nothing to suggest
> >that randomness alone made up what we see on earth today.
>
> No one has claimed that "randomness alone" did, that is just another creationist
> red herring.
>
>
Randomness coincides with chaos. You can't even define chaos really,
since it can't be proved to be 'unrandom' since it has the properties
of mathematics in molecules. There is 'no reason' for anything to be
mathematical. Until you define that, I am afraid you are just fishing
for an 'any' explanation.
>
> >> So tell us: If something as big, as intelligent, as powerful, as obviously
> >> complex, as God, could just have "always existed", then why not the much
> >> simpler, raw energy, from which the universe as we know it formed.
>
> >You don't know that the universe "formed". The Big Bang could have
> >been God playing billiards, and he just broke the rack and scattered
> >some matter.
>
> Childish evasion.
>
Oh really? Why is it so common to see things like the Big Bang
described as energy compressed into the head of a pin, then a
releasing? The scientific community has no idea, but they say stuff
like that to make it 'sound ok'. Yet, you will blindly go along with
something like that, and pick on superior intelligence?
> Besides, there was no matter involved, not until some considerable time later,
> somewhere between three minutes, and half an hour, and a hundred million years
> before the first stars appeared.
>
>
Oh brother. Now we have a 'replay'. Tell us about the matter
arriving theory your going to try to feed us.
>
> >> And if the raw energy could have "just existed", why could life NOT have
> >> evolved?
>
> >You would have to define "evolved"
>
> More evasion.
>
Evasion, when you can't define it? The Unravelling, try to define
that.
> evolve
> n verb
> 1 develop gradually.
> 2 (of an organism or biological feature) develop over successive
> generations by evolution.
> 3 Chemistry give off (gas or heat).
>
That's a mere dictionary definition. Tell us why evolution has to be
gradual in the formation of life please?
> > It's like asking if a Creator
> >created, how and how long he created.
>
> Yet more evasion.
>
> When you can't answer, why not just say so?
>
But you are not answering in replace of it. So why can't you just
say, you have no idea how life came into existence, Evolution-wise, or
Creator-wise? That would be the honest thing.
>
>
> >> You all like to argue that it is a mathematical impossibility, for abiogenesis
> >> to have occurred, but you never explain why, you never produce the figures upon
> >> which you base your assertions.
>
> >There are several 'in the field' that like to assign numbers to that.
> >A lot of that stuff is 10 to the google power stuff. None of it comes
> >back as 'likely' with ingredia and numbers.
>
> Word salad.
>
>
I guess if one looks at salad as ingredients and assigns things
necessary for life, that's exactly what it is, and it's attempted by
many. The right gravity, raining water in atmosphere on a scheduled
basis, DNA forming, the tides, the Sun being at a conscise
distance....hundreds of such things...people attempt to put numbers
to. Yet, people that believe in randomness, can't put any numbers
that say...oh, that's likely to happen. How come?
>
> >> Try explaining EXACTLY why abiogenesis, is impossible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >There is a number that some have used to define as 1 in a longshot as
> >"never ever gonna happen" It's something like 10 to the 30th power.
> >What ever the number could be, it's NOT a likely number. Why would
> >one want to put their money on the line on a bet that has no good
> >chance of winning?
>
> So you don't know, yet still you argue the toss, and based in what?
>
Just tossing about what is tossed about in scientific cirlcles. There
is no true number, but whatever the number is, it's not likely to
happen on it's own. That's the rub. You can't make up a scenario
where it's likely to happen. I showed you the link of the Miller-Urey
falacy and how improbable it made that look. Where is the faith that
your god-didn't-do-it way has any potential logic or crediblility?
> Tour posts suggest nothing more than incredulity, and wishful thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
We have a finished end product. You can't even make up a product much
less a first product.
curtjester1
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 04:33:09 -0700, curtjester1 wrote:
> > >So now you're not claiming that god exists?
> > >Good boy.
> >You would make a good politician, but quite contraire`. If there
> >wasn't a beginning, of course a god could exist, and could have always
> >existed.
>
> Could isn't good enough. A Yeti _could_ be living in the
> closet in your double-wide. After all, nobody's ever proved
> there aren't Yetis!
>
It sure doesn't do much for your firm stance that it didn't or
couldn't have existed in any time of the past does it?
> <snippage>
>
> >> They never claimed that the experiment
> >> produced life. Lie away, kiddo, you know very well
> >> that they never claimed that it did.
> >So why post or rely on these experiment/articles?
> >If you read the
> >abiogenesis article on them from the previous post one would see that
> >not only do their experiments not produce life, they actually support
> >more that it did not occur randomly.
>
> Chemical reactions are not random. I don't know why you
> creationists continue to insist on randomness. Actual randomness
> is actually very difficult to achieve. Even the simplest rules
> are likely to quickly result in extreme complexity,
> as experiments with cellular automita have proven. Randomness
> has very little to do with it. But you yahoos keep pretending
> that this hasn't been explained to you. You keep telling us
> that we told you it came about randomly. Well, it didn't.
> But there is absolutely no evidence that a god did it.
>
You can't go that way with chemicals because you don't know how even
they arose. Why do highly mathematical things arise? There is no
reason that mathematics on a high level should be a given and the word
randomness be given it, yet you don't even go there and start with
chemical reactions which you can't say are without a cause or
intelligent force behind them.
> <snippage>
>
> Why do they keep experimenting ala Urey-Miller when they failed
> miserably? The inaneness for such experimenting must not be based on
> odds, or any likelihood at all, yet if they find something they can be
> 'superstars' of the science community...saying WE (the ones who seek
> glory) have found 'it'. It's got you so deluded that you even think
> they are 'CLOSER'. And when you discount "supernatural bunk", you are
> saying in essence, I don't WANT an outside source for life's
> arrivals. Of course eliminating that from the equation is NOT very
> hypothetically sound if one wants to take in possibilities, is it?
>
> Bullshit. You have absolutely no experiment or evidence that backs
> up your superstition _at_ _all_. You might as well be claiming that
> a Yeti lives in the closet of your double wide -- except the situation
> is even worse for you:
>
That's why there is no need to experiment at all. Just look at the
end product. You don't get sophistication and superior planning for
function out of nothing, chaos, or randomness. You look for the how's
when the answer for life is much simpler. Like I said, you don't need
to know how things are made to know that they are.
> You _always_ have to explain how something got complex enough to
> be the intelligence that created the universe -- _before_ s/he
> created the universe.
>
Nope, just the point. It just 'is'. If one believes it the luck of a
unique explosion, then go ahead. And even that won't do unless you
show us the luck and the explosion.
> <snippage>
>
> >> Evolution does not treat of this. Evolution has to do with
> >> the modifications of life forms once they are here.- Hide quoted text -
> >So you want to get into the cat was a dog vs. the cat was never a
> >dog.
>
> Get into it? WTF are you talking about?
>
The how's and diversity of life. Interesting, but unnecessary for the
belief in a Creator. If you want to believe that the cat was a dog,
have at it. Even if you proved that it was, it still wouldn't
necessarily negate a Creator, would it?
> >Have fun, but it has nothing to do with life's origins,
>
> It doesn't claim to, you idiot. It shows how life
> developed once the simplest forms were here.
>
Oh, "once the simplest forms were here". Do expound.
> > and by
> >many people's standards, if evolution were the source of all life
>
> From Darwin forward, no major scientist has claimed that.
> I keep telling you that, and you keep forgetting it a few
> sentences later. Do you have Alzheimer disease? Are you not
> actually a middle school student, but a demented old crock
> writing from a nursing home.
> Evolutionary theory does not treat of the origins of life.
> Idiot.
Darwin had his own problems with things that couldn't be appearing
gradual, and many other things. There are many people who are highly
educated in many scientific areas that look at a Creator as a logical
conclusion. We're not falling into your little diatribe.
CJ
Sockie
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c6cb612-8878-4fa9...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
quoted text -
>
There is a number that some have used to define as 1 in a longshot as
"never ever gonna happen" It's something like 10 to the 30th power.
What ever the number could be, it's NOT a likely number. Why would
one want to put their money on the line on a bet that has no good
chance of winning?
Why do you not accept that life could have came from another planet? This
earth was seeded by intelligent life from elsewhere? Why does it have to be
a magical killer god?
Profit-of-Gloom
Science by cheerleading at it's best, folks.
CJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep! That's what creationism is. ;-)