In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with creationism resolution
Jason Spaceman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By ERIK SCHELZIG
Associated Press Writer
There are no constitutional problems with a state senator's resolution
to ask Tennessee's top education official whether a supreme being
created the universe, the state attorney general said in an opinion
released today.
State Attorney General Bob Cooper said his opinion is based on the
fact the resolution "merely requests" answers and imposes no penalties
if Education Commissioner Lana Seivers declines to answer.
"While the resolution clearly appears to constitute a rhetorical
device designed to advocate the teaching of creationism as an
alternative to the theory of evolution, there is no indication that
the resolution is intended to attack (Seivers') qualifications for her
position," Cooper wrote.
Sen. Raymond Finney is the sponsor of a resolution to ask Seivers
whether the universe "has been created or has merely happened by
random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences."
Finney, a Maryville Republican, said he wants the department to say
there's no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let
schools teach creationism or intelligent design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/NEWS0201/70313044
J. Spaceman
Ron O
wrote:
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By ERIK SCHELZIG
> Associated Press Writer
>
> There are no constitutional problems with a state senator's resolution
> to ask Tennessee's top education official whether a supreme being
> created the universe, the state attorney general said in an opinion
> released today.
>
> State Attorney General Bob Cooper said his opinion is based on the
> fact the resolution "merely requests" answers and imposes no penalties
> if Education Commissioner Lana Seivers declines to answer.
>
> "While the resolution clearly appears to constitute a rhetorical
> device designed to advocate the teaching of creationism as an
> alternative to the theory of evolution, there is no indication that
> the resolution is intended to attack (Seivers') qualifications for her
> position," Cooper wrote.
>
> Sen. Raymond Finney is the sponsor of a resolution to ask Seivers
> whether the universe "has been created or has merely happened by
> random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences."
>
> Finney, a Maryville Republican, said he wants the department to say
> there's no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let
> schools teach creationism or intelligent design.
Oops, the guy is linking creationism with the current obfuscation
scam. That makes him more honest than the guys at the Discovery
Institute, but what does that tell you about the current creationist
scam?
It is a more straight forward approach, and it is probably the way
that these things should be done, but Finney should know that he will
not like the answer. The question has already been evaluated in
science and Finney's version of his fantasy answer was found to be
inadequate. We probably will owe Finney a debt of gratitude, but it
would only be because he was too stupid or ignorant to know what the
creationist scam currently is. You aren't supposed to mention
creationism or God in the current scam. You are just supposed to
claim that there is some problem, and then try and sneak creationism
in through the back door.
The last thing that the creationist scam artists want is an honest
evaluation comparing science to creationism. All the ones with half a
brain and that know what is going on already know that they don't like
the answer. That is sad, but true. Just go and ask the creationist
scam artists at the Discovery Institute why they are running the
"teach the controversy" or "critical analysis" scam if they really
want to compare science to their religious beliefs. Rubes like Finney
were only supposed to claim that there were problems with science.
The creationist rubes were not supposed to advocate an honest
evaluation of creationism and real science. Just look what happened
when the creationist rubes tried to teach intelligent design in Ohio
and Dover. That was the creationist scam before "teach the
controversy," and what happened. It turned out that the reason that
they never put up anything to teach about ID was that there was
nothing worth teaching about it. Now, this boob is messing up the
whole show. If he gets his way an answer will be given back to the
legislature and he will have to accept it. If it is an honest answer
he won't like it. Why can I make that claim? Just look at the
current creationist scams and ask yourself "Why are the creationists
running these stupid scams if creationism can stand up to real
science?" The answer is obvious.
Scientific creationism failed, and failed so badly that the next
generation of scam artists claimed that they were not scientific
creationists. Intelligent design failed before it even got to court.
The Intelligent design scam artists were already dressing up the
replacement scam half a decade before ID was found to be bogus in
Dover. The "teach the controversy" or "critical analysis" creationist
scam doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, but it is being
perpetrated by the same creationist scam artists that perpetrated the
intelligent design scam. If creationism could stand up to real
science, why would the creationists need to run these dishonest scams?
Ron Okimoto
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/NEWS0201/70...
>
> J. Spaceman
Geoff
news:pmcfv2pflm9oipmm4...@4ax.com...
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By ERIK SCHELZIG
> Associated Press Writer
>
> There are no constitutional problems with a state senator's resolution
> to ask Tennessee's top education official whether a supreme being
> created the universe, the state attorney general said in an opinion
> released today.
>
> State Attorney General Bob Cooper said his opinion is based on the
> fact the resolution "merely requests" answers and imposes no penalties
> if Education Commissioner Lana Seivers declines to answer.
And now onto more relevant affairs. Finney's 15 minutes are now over.
Bobby Bryant
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> writes:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By ERIK SCHELZIG
> Associated Press Writer
>
> There are no constitutional problems with a state senator's resolution
> to ask Tennessee's top education official whether a supreme being
> created the universe, the state attorney general said in an opinion
> released today.
>
> State Attorney General Bob Cooper said his opinion is based on the
> fact the resolution "merely requests" answers and imposes no penalties
> if Education Commissioner Lana Seivers declines to answer.
>
> "While the resolution clearly appears to constitute a rhetorical
> device designed to advocate the teaching of creationism as an
> alternative to the theory of evolution, there is no indication that
> the resolution is intended to attack (Seivers') qualifications for her
> position," Cooper wrote.
>
> Sen. Raymond Finney is the sponsor of a resolution to ask Seivers
> whether the universe "has been created or has merely happened by
> random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences."
>
> Finney, a Maryville Republican, said he wants the department to say
> there's no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let
> schools teach creationism or intelligent design.
And *that* is where the constitutional problems pop out.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Jason Spaceman
http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2007/OP/OP29.pdf
J. Spaceman
Bodega
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By ERIK SCHELZIG
> Associated Press Writer
>
> There are no constitutional problems with a state senator's resolution
> to ask Tennessee's top education official whether a supreme being
> created the universe, the state attorney general said in an opinion
> released today.
>
Jim Crow, an' civil rahts 'n' goin' to college? If'n any of them
ejicated nohtherners come down here, we got some dams under
construction that'll make a nize berial place. Wha, if any of my kids
went to college, I'd shoot 'em.
Ron O
wrote:
> The text of the Tennessee AG's decision can be read athttp://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2007/OP/OP29.pdf
>
> J. Spaceman
The bill does not seem to be unconstitutional. There is no reason
given for asking the questions and no penalties or actions required
for any answer that they get. It is just a rhetorical bill.
The first question is: Is the Universe and all that is within it
including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design
by a Supreme Being, that is the Creator?
The author expects the correct answer is that we can't make that call
at this time. It is not yes or no or black and white. It isn't a
simple answer. The problem with the creationists is that they do not
like the correct answer because it still doesn't do them any good.
Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we
find it. We just have no reason to put one in. Some supernatural
designer could have been tweeking things in some unmeasurable way for
billions of years and we wouldn't know it. We might not be able to
detect such design intervention today because the designer might not
be doing anything or as Behe suggested in court, his designer might be
dead. The simple fact is that science does not have to resort to the
design alternative because we do not have any reason to. Science
can't deal with something where we do not have any good evidence that
that something even exists to deal with. We can't answer this
question any better than we can answer the question whether or not the
designer is an invisible pink unicorn, or blue or green or even a
unicorn.
There are more questions: Since the Universe, including human beings,
is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not
taught in Tennessee public schools?
They won't have to answer this question because that will not be the
answer to question number 1.
The last question: Since it cannot be determined whether the
universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a
Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept,
explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in
Tennessee public schools?
Part of the answer to this question would be in the answer to question
number one, and if the clown wanted more elaboration he can go ask the
ID scam artists at the Discovery Institute why they had to go with a
replacment scam to ID back in 1999 if ID were something worth
teaching. Really, why would the guys that had been advocating
teaching intelligent design for years (the division of renewal of
science and culture was created back in 1995) have to go with a
replacment scam that doesn't even mention that ID has ever existed?
There simply is nothing worth teaching about that "theory" at this
time. At this time all intelligent design has going for it are
assertions that the scam artists haven't bothered to test and can't
verify if they mean anything. Intelligent design may be an ancient
notion, but it has a 100% failure rate for explaning things that we
can study in nature and we have no reason to consider the notion in
science at this time. We have a scientific "theory" of biological
evolution that is science and does explain the data that we have. It
would not be a scientific theory if it could not be tested and did not
have explanatory power. The simple notion that God did it is not a
scientific notion when you can't even determine if God exists. Even
the ID scam artists have among their number guys that do not deny that
biological evolution happened, they just don't think that we can rule
out some designer tweeking that evolution every once in a while. They
claim that some designer tweeked flagellum into existence a couple
billion years ago, or that some designer tweeked lifeforms during the
Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago. They don't claim
that the designer is doing anything today, because as Behe claimed,
under oath, his designer might be dead. He would not have had to make
that claim if there were any good evidence that the designer was
alive.
All of this would come out in the answer to this bill and I support
its passage. No action is going to be taken, and the only outcome
will be that people will be educated. Someone will have to waste a
little time, but all they have to do is consult someone like Miller,
and they can even consult the ID scam artists at the Discovery
Institute or the Dover court transcripts to get their more honest
answers that they had to give under oath. There is a good reason why
intelligent design/creationism is not taught in the public schools.
This bill would make it clear why. Even though the rube is stupid or
just ignorant, he has stumbled in his ignorance and he has believed
the wrong people. He will find out just how much he can trust the
dishonest creationist scam artists that he has been listening too.
He is so incompetent that he doesn't even know that the latest
creationist scam is to not even mention that creation or intelligent
design have ever existed. He was just supposed to rattle on about the
"problems" with science and only sneak his creationist beliefs in
under the cover of darkness.
The Dover rubes screwed up and tried to actually teach intelligent
design. The ID scam artists tried their best to get them to not teach
it, because it was going to ruin their scams when everything was
revealed in court. ID was only being used as smoke to make the
controversy scam look legit. The rubes were not actually supposed to
believe the ID propaganda. This guy is screwing up by the numbers, if
he wasn't a blow hard ignorant incompetent he would know better.
Ron Okimoto
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
<snip>
> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> to...
I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
horizon.
George Evans
snex
> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
what is your justification for this claim? abiogenesis is not only
unsolved problem in science. are you claiming that all unsolved
problems in science "could sure use a creator" or some other resort to
magical explanations?
Ron O
> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
Where is abiogenesis mentioned in the bill?
Are you trying to claim that we should shove the creator into every
unsolved problem that we have in science? When they did that hundreds
and thousands of years ago, what were the results? Did the designer
did it explanation ever amount to anything? One example of a success
is all that you would need and you have the entire history of science
to access so put up your designer success or admit that there hasn't
been one. Making unwarrented claims isn't science, and using an
explanation with a 100% failure rate upon testing is stupid, to say
the least. Just think of how many designer/creator did it assertions
have failed and been replaced by testable verifiable working
solutions. Ignorance should be the last reason to use ID. Why is
that a viable option? When has it ever been a verifiable option? Put
up a single example and how it was confirmed.
Ron Okimoto
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
grand scope of getting clean, science sure does need to resort to
something bettwe when it comes to whacking clothes on rocks. You could
sure use a creator at that point. You have no better way of getting
clothes clean and none appearing on the horizon."
--Shaman Qr'xlpok, 11 minutes before Utpuy tripped and knocked ashes
into the kettle with yesterday's stew
"I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the
grand scope of building large structures. science sure does need to
resort to something better when it comes to lifting large stones. You
sure could use a creator at that point. You have no way of lifting
large stones and none appearing on the horizon."
--Priest of Baal, 18 minutes before invention of the pulley
"I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the
grand scope of staying awake, science sure does need to resort to
something bettwe when it comes to pulling an all nighter. You sure
could use a creator at that point. You have no way of keeping watch
all night for that jaguar and none appearing on the horizon."
--Priest of Quetzalcoatl, as Ctulomarkto, litening raptly, idly
plucked a bean from a nearby bush and began to nibble it
You've had the same lines for 10,000 years or more. You recycle it
more than Broadway recycles bad musicals.
Chris
George Evans
sn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/17/07 6:13 PM:
> On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
>>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
>>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
>>> reason to...
>>>
>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand scope
>> of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to something
>> better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator at that
>> point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the horizon.
>>
> what is your justification for this claim? abiogenesis is not only unsolved
> problem in science. are you claiming that all unsolved problems in science
> "could sure use a creator" or some other resort to magical explanations?
No just this one. You say you know it happened because there is life. You
know the alleged results--everything we have in common with all life forms.
You pretty much know it must have been a chemical process and we understand
those quite well. There is not much more to explore here.
In the face of this it makes no sense to unabashedly tell people that you
know that everything can be explained naturally, when you can't explain the
very first biological event. Your statement must be seen as nothing other
than shear faith.
George Evans
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/17/07 6:49 PM:
> On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
>>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
>>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
>>> reason to...
>>>
>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand scope
>> of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to something
>> better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator at that
>> point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the horizon.
>>
> Where is abiogenesis mentioned in the bill?
The question to be asked the educator is primarily about beginnings. It's
not asking "did an intelligent being manipulate already present life forms".
It's about origins.
George Evans
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 3/17/07
7:14 PM:
And likewise, this has always been your response.
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article 1174184072.096358.274...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/17/07
And if you take a look at the world around you, and the body of
knowledge we have amassed, you'l see that all of it proceeded from not
making any assumption of a god or gods in the workds.
Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the
existence of a supernatural being. Even when the shamans and mystics
_claimed_ it was their juju doing the hoodoo, people eventually
figured out what the truth was.
So yeah, you've been using the same lines for 10,000 years or more,
and people have been telling you the same thing for almost that whole
time.
The difference is that we have 10,000 years of successes to back us
up, and you've got...snake-oil.
Chris
Ron O
> in article 1174182585.806421.97...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/17/07 6:49 PM:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong again. Where is "beginnings" mentioned in the bill? They are
talking about the creation of things, but just reread the questions.
What is your definition of abiogenesis and how does the creation of
humans and the universe fit into it? Just read the first question
again. There seems to be a lot of things covered by that statement,
so what? The senator was not concentrating on abiogenesis was he.
You just wanted to emphasis it for some reason.
So you admit that you are just craming god did it into any place where
we don't know the answer, yet. Do you have an example of when that
ever came to anything in science? Just one example is all that I
asked for, but you snipped that part without even acknowledgement.
Are you going to answer or not? It is OK to tell the truth that no
such example exists. Why not tell the truth? Why obfuscate the
issue? Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean that you
can lie about it or deny it. Really, what good does it do you to
prevaricate? It doesn't change the answer does it? It only makes you
look dishonest or mentally incompetent. If you have an example put it
forward. If you don't have an example what good is your argument
about abiogenesis?
Ron Okimoto
snex
> in article 1174180392.034131.61...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/17/07 6:13 PM:
nonsense. you offer absolutely no justification for saying "no just
this one." ignorance has *never* indicated that your mythology is true
in the past, and it does not now with abiogenesis. nor will it ever in
the future.
Desertphile
Nobody, as far as I know, has said "creators" were not involved.
It is just that there is no evidence for them, therefore science
does not include them. As soon as evidence for these "creators" is
discovered, science will include them.
Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
5:37 AM:
<snip>
> Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> of a supernatural being...
I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
could kill the undesirables.
George Evans
Free Lunch
So the organized murder rampages of Christians and non-Christians alike
prove what?
Greg G.
> in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> 5:37 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> > of a supernatural being...
>
> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> could kill the undesirables.
No more successful than any other civilization that never heard of the
Ten Commandments. Many of the commandments seem to obeyed by
chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. They don't take the Lord's
name in vain.
>
> George Evans
--
Greg G.
The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries
any reward.
--John Maynard Keynes
George Evans
sn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 8:07 AM:
> nonsense. you offer absolutely no justification for saying "no just this one."
> ignorance has *never* indicated that your mythology is true in the past, and
> it does not now with abiogenesis. nor will it ever in the future.
No justification is necessary, I just picked one. I think the future hold
continued failure in the search for a godless explanation for abiogenesis.
Get used to it.
George Evans
George Evans
deser...@nospam.org wrote on 3/18/07 9:14 AM:
Well, let me explain it to you. Science will never comprehend a supernatural
creator because He can't be measured by you. He just is. He is outside your
biggest box.
George Evans
Earle Jones
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
*
Does religion have a rational explanation?
God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made
the first human being?
That's a rational explanation?
earle
*
"God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable
game of His own devising, which might be compared [to] an obscure
and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards,
for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and
who smiles all the time."
--Good Omens
Frank J
> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>
> <snip>
>
> > ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> > supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> > We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> > not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> > to...
>
> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
> horizon.
How did the Creator conduct abiogenesis? How many times? When?
We'll accept testable hypotheses for the first (e.g. autocatalytic
sets), a ballpark estimate for the second (e.g. "once"), and at least
an order of magnitude time for the 3rd (e.g. 3.5 - 4 billion years).
That's all that science claims about abiogenesis, and makes no claim
either way whether a Creator (or designer) is involved. If you can
support different conclusions for any of the 3 parts, be our guest.
Anything less, especially accompanied by a god-of-the-gaps
(non)explanation is an admission that science has a better answer than
you do.
>
> George Evans
Free Lunch
So you assert. No evidence at all supports your claim.
Frank J
> in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> 5:37 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> > of a supernatural being...
>
> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> could kill the undesirables.
Unfortunately anti-evolution activists only kept nine of them.
>
> George Evans
Frank J
> On Mar 18, 7:00 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> > chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> > 5:37 AM:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> > > of a supernatural being...
>
> > I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> > pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> > could kill the undesirables.
>
> No more successful than any other civilization that never heard of the
> Ten Commandments. Many of the commandments seem to obeyed by
> chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. They don't take the Lord's
> name in vain.
Hmm. I might have to downgrade it to 8 Commandments. If an IDer takes
the name of a designer in vain, and he honestly does not know the
designer's identity, or whether the designer even exists any more (per
Behe's Dover testimony), yet knows that his audience will mostly infer
God, I don't think that God will let him off too easily.
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 6:19 AM:
> On Mar 18, 12:54 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174182585.806421.97...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/17/07 6:49 PM:
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 8:06 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>>>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find
>>>>> it. We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science
>>>>> does not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have
>>>>> any reason to...
>>>>>
>>>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
>>>> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
>>>> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
>>>> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
>>>> horizon.
>>
>>> Where is abiogenesis mentioned in the bill?
>>
>> The question to be asked the educator is primarily about beginnings. It's not
>> asking "did an intelligent being manipulate already present life forms". It's
>> about origins.
>>
> Wrong again. Where is "beginnings" mentioned in the bill? They are talking
> about the creation of things, but just reread the questions. What is your
> definition of abiogenesis and how does the creation of humans and the universe
> fit into it? Just read the first question again. There seems to be a lot of
> things covered by that statement, so what? The senator was not concentrating
> on abiogenesis was he. You just wanted to emphasis it for some reason.
I picked abiogenesis because it is a very important question that you have
no answer for, and you said you believe science *does* have an answer for
*everything*.
> So you admit that you are just craming god did it into any place where we
> don't know the answer, yet. Do you have an example of when that ever came to
> anything in science? Just one example is all that I asked for, but you
> snipped that part without even acknowledgement. Are you going to answer or
> not? It is OK to tell the truth that no such example exists. Why not tell
> the truth? Why obfuscate the issue? Just because you don't like an answer
> doesn't mean that you can lie about it or deny it. Really, what good does it
> do you to prevaricate? It doesn't change the answer does it? It only makes
> you look dishonest or mentally incompetent. If you have an example put it
> forward. If you don't have an example what good is your argument about
> abiogenesis?
You are the one who brought it up. I shot you down by pointing out an
exception to your assertion that science has all the answers. I merely
pointed out a serious question for you and possibly the most serious. And I
think it is worth mentioning as opposed to other questions where there is
still a lot to investigate. With abiogenesis we are approaching the end of
the story.
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> 5:37 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> > of a supernatural being...
>
> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> could kill the undesirables.
>
> George Evans
That's not a hypothesis; that's a dogmatic stricture.
Here's a hypothesis: chlorophyll migrates to the roots of plants in
winter and that's why leaves lost their green color. It's easily
testable (look at roots in winter) and falsifiable (if the roots
aren't green, there's no chlorophyll there).
Others have pointed out to you the silliness of this, but let's just
take a look at the First (and supposedly most important) Commandment:
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
In case you hadn't noticed, India is the most populous democracy on
the planet. Their economy is on fire, their standard of living is
going up faster than anyone else's (except perhapt the atheist
Chinese!) and American jobs are flocking there like locusts to a
cornfield. Any ideas?
Chris
Ron O
> in article 1174223951.568758.190...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 6:19 AM:
Actually, I never said any such thing, so you are lying. Why would
you have to do that. Do you deny that we have an answer for the
creation of the universe and Humans? It may not include everything,
but it is a heck of a lot more of an answer than anything that you can
cook up isn't it? Where did I say that science has an answer for
everything? It would be a pretty neat trick if that were the case
because we wouldn't call it science any more if we had all the
answers.
>
> > So you admit that you are just craming god did it into any place where we
> > don't know the answer, yet. Do you have an example of when that ever came to
> > anything in science? Just one example is all that I asked for, but you
> > snipped that part without even acknowledgement. Are you going to answer or
> > not? It is OK to tell the truth that no such example exists. Why not tell
> > the truth? Why obfuscate the issue? Just because you don't like an answer
> > doesn't mean that you can lie about it or deny it. Really, what good does it
> > do you to prevaricate? It doesn't change the answer does it? It only makes
> > you look dishonest or mentally incompetent. If you have an example put it
> > forward. If you don't have an example what good is your argument about
> > abiogenesis?
>
> You are the one who brought it up. I shot you down by pointing out an
> exception to your assertion that science has all the answers. I merely
> pointed out a serious question for you and possibly the most serious. And I
> think it is worth mentioning as opposed to other questions where there is
> still a lot to investigate. With abiogenesis we are approaching the end of
> the story.
The only one you shot down was yourself. You brought up abiogenesis
as something that we don't know yet to try and blow smoke over what we
have already have figured out. It was just the classic creationist
argument from ignorance. What you need to start arguing from is what
you do know. That is what science does. The last thing that science
claims is that we know everything. So you are full of baloney.
What you need is your own answer, but you obviously don't have one or
you would have put it forward by now. What good does abiogenesis do
you when you can't name a single instance where your designer has been
verified to be responsible for anything that we can study in nature.
All you need is one example to make your abiogenesis argument even
slightly reasonable. Without one it is just a scam claim to obfuscate
the issue and cover up the fact that you really don't have a valid
argument.
Ron Okimoto
Krubozumo Nyankoye
intoned: news:1174180392....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Perhaps a little exapansion on outstanding questions will clarify matters
some. Let me put George's response into a slightly different context.
>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the
>> grand scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to
>> resort to something better when it comes to cancer. You could
>> sure use a creator at that point. You have no rational explanation
>> and none appearing on the horizon.
I think that clearly demonstrates the difference between science, and
whatever George is bloviating about.
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
snex
> in article 1174230465.238380.262...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, snex at
> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 8:07 AM:
if you cannot offer justification, then you are just presenting the
ravings of a madman, and nobody need give a shit what your opinion is.
so, that being the case, why bother telling us what you know we dont
give a shit about?
Earle Jones
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
*
If someone here said that science *does* have an answer for
everything (which I doubt), they are sadly mistaken. Science *does
not* have an answer for everything.
In fact, the more that science discovers, the more we understand how
much there really is left to know.
When Newton proposed his laws of motion, we figured that we had
discovered some universal laws relating to velocity, energy, etc.
But then Einstein showed that there are velocities (near the speed
of light) that deviate from Newton's laws. Einstein proposed new
laws which did not prove Newton wrong, they *extended* Newton into
domains that Newton was unaware of.
But you who assign to God those unknown areas of science are in for
a woeful shock. By assigning God to those 'gaps', you are assigning
him to a shrinking piece of the world as we know it.
Two or three hundred years ago -- a short amount of time in the
progress of mankind -- it was argued that earthquakes, tornadoes,
hurricanes and even thunder and lightning were acts of God --
bringing down his wrath on we sinners.
Today, owing to scientific discoveries, we know that is wrong. We
must take those results away from God and give them to science.
God's domain is shrinking and it will continue to shrink as long as
we are free to practice our scientific discovery.
The real estate you have assigned to your God is getting smaller.
You belittle your God by your claim that God is responsible for
whatever science cannot today explain.
But what about tomorrow?
earle
*
George Evans
lu...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 3/18/07 5:02 PM:
We are where we started. I think that fact that life came from nothing
supports my claim.
George Evans
George Evans
Jones at earle...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
> In article <C221DE64.47BF%geor...@earthlink.net>,
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1173959352.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
>>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
>>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
>>> reason
>>> to...
>>
>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
>> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
>> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
>> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
>> horizon.
>>
>> George Evans
>
> *
> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>
> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made
> the first human being?
>
> That's a rational explanation?
What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
assemble themselves.
Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
all that there is?
George Evans
George Evans
fn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
I'm not proposing a god-of-the-gaps theory. I'm introducing the God of THE
GAP. It's one big gap called abiogenesis. A gap so big you have cut it off
from the evolutionary debate so you can continue fighting.
As far as speculating about your questions: I would guess He did it like a
science teacher sets up an experiment. He puts things together from parts
and then turns it on. I think He did it once on this earth around 6,000
years ago.
Now, what do you have to say in answer to your questions?
George Evans
George Evans
fn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:09 PM:
Then it would appear that you agree.
George Evans
George Evans
> On Mar 18, 7:00 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
>> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
>> 5:37 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
>>> of a supernatural being...
>>>
>> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
>> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
>> could kill the undesirables.
>>
> That's not a hypothesis; that's a dogmatic stricture.
>
> Here's a hypothesis: chlorophyll migrates to the roots of plants in winter and
> that's why leaves lost their green color. It's easily testable (look at roots
> in winter) and falsifiable (if the roots aren't green, there's no chlorophyll
> there).
>
> Others have pointed out to you the silliness of this, but let's just take a
> look at the First (and supposedly most important) Commandment:
>
> ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, India is the most populous democracy on the
> planet. Their economy is on fire, their standard of living is going up faster
> than anyone else's (except perhapt the atheist Chinese!) and American jobs are
> flocking there like locusts to a cornfield. Any ideas?
Is this all to say that it isn't a good idea to follow the ten commandments?
I predict, based on my hypothesis, that soon, China will begin experience
massive problems with graft and corruption, and will decide to "follow God's
law" possibly calling it something like an opiate.
George Evans
Greg Esres
<<Your statement must be seen as nothing other than shear faith.>>
Nah, induction. Science has already explained umpteen million things
that the anti-intellectuals said would never be explained. No reason
to think this success streak will end anytime soon.
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 7:35 PM:
> On Mar 18, 7:33 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174223951.568758.190...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 6:19 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 18, 12:54 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> The question to be asked the educator is primarily about beginnings. It's
>>>> not asking "did an intelligent being manipulate already present life
>>>> forms". It's about origins.
>>>>
>>> Wrong again. Where is "beginnings" mentioned in the bill? They are talking
>>> about the creation of things, but just reread the questions. What is your
>>> definition of abiogenesis and how does the creation of humans and the
>>> universe fit into it? Just read the first question again. There seems to
>>> be a lot of things covered by that statement, so what? The senator was not
>>> concentrating on abiogenesis was he. You just wanted to emphasis it for some
>>> reason.
>>>
>> I picked abiogenesis because it is a very important question that you have no
>> answer for, and you said you believe science *does* have an answer for
>> *everything*.
>>
> Actually, I never said any such thing, so you are lying. Why would you have
> to do that. Do you deny that we have an answer for the creation of the
> universe and Humans? It may not include everything, but it is a heck of a lot
> more of an answer than anything that you can cook up isn't it? Where did I
> say that science has an answer for everything? It would be a pretty neat
> trick if that were the case because we wouldn't call it science any more if we
> had all the answers.
You said you had an answer for everything when you expressed confidence that
you would never need God as an answer. I do not deny that you have answers
of many other things. My only assertion here is only that you do not have,
and will never have a scientific answer for how life started.
<snip>
George Evans
George Evans
lu...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 3/18/07 4:10 PM:
That everyone didn't agree.
George Evans
Ron O
> in article 1174271747.730043.251...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 7:35 PM:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another lie. Why do you have to lie. Demonstrate that I wrote
anything of the kind. Since I'm a Christian it would surprise me to
have said any such thing. Just go and try and find where I said that
I would never need God as an answer. Just do it or appologize for
lying about what I wrote. I said that the designer did it assertion
has a 100% failure rate upon testing in science. That is a fact. If
you don't like facts, that is your problem. Lying about the facts
just makes you a liar. It doesn't do anything for your argument. All
you have to do to make it not a fact is to come up with one working
example. Just try and get one of the creationist scam outfits to give
you an example. Why do you think that I call them creationist scam
outfits? Have you ever gotten an honest argument from them worth
anything? Put it forward because I'd like to see that too.
So far to avoid supporting your position all you have done is lied.
What does that tell you? Why not just support your position?
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<C2236664.4AC9%geor...@earthlink.net>, George Evans stated..."
And where did that parts come from? The parts that God put together?
Was God given these parts in some unsatisfactory state?
Remember, you find it unsatisfactory that evolution doesn't have an
answer to this kind of question. If it tells against evolution, not to
have an answer, doesn't it equally tell against "God put things
together", not to have an answer, either?
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article 1174270201.226301.300...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Can you even begin to grasp how irrelevant this is? I believe it's a
good idea to come to a complete stop at "STOP" signs, too, but that
doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis.
You have yet to come up with a single case in which the existence of a
deity played a positive role in any scientific advance.
But don't feel too bad- no one else has, either.
> I predict, based on my hypothesis, that soon, China will begin experience
> massive problems with graft and corruption, and will decide to "follow God's
> law" possibly calling it something like an opiate.
China _already_ has massive problems with graft and corruption. So
what? Do you think that's some sort of result of the Chinese not
following the Ten Commandments? That's silly. (If you had said it was
from communism I would have agreed. Note that communism and atheism
are not the same thing).
Since your computer apparently does not receive news from south of the
Mason-Dixon line, I would take this opportunity that several
government investigative agencies have found that over two BILLION
dollars has already been lost to graft and corruption in Louisiana and
Mississippi, during the Katrina reconstruction. That makes China- and
every other nation on the planet- look like a piker. Keep in mind
that's taking place in the most heavily Christian part of one of the
most predominantly Christian nations on earth.
I'd say your 10 Commandments aren't working all that well, Mr. Evans.
Chris
> George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article mnkrv21a6ofbvlb16fhfp878g0ojl50...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 3/18/07 5:02 PM:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:58:54 GMT, in talk.origins George Evans
>
> >> in article n9pqv29qs9ddpbnq6urb627411b9n06...@4ax.com, Desertphile at
> >> desertph...@nospam.org wrote on 3/18/07 9:14 AM:
>
> >>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:06:22 GMT, George Evans
>
> >>>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> >>>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find
> >>>>> it. We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science
> >>>>> does not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have
> >>>>> any reason to...
>
> >>>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
> >>>> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
> >>>> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
> >>>> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
> >>>> horizon.
>
> >>> Nobody, as far as I know, has said "creators" were not involved. It is just
> >>> that there is no evidence for them, therefore science does not include them.
> >>> As soon as evidence for these "creators" is discovered, science will include
> >>> them.
>
> >>> Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
>
> >> Well, let me explain it to you. Science will never comprehend a supernatural
> >> creator because He can't be measured by you. He just is. He is outside your
> >> biggest box.
>
> > So you assert. No evidence at all supports your claim.
>
> We are where we started. I think that fact that life came from nothing
> supports my claim.
>
> George Evans
Life didn't come from nothing. Life came from materials present on the
planet the instant before life began. Even your bible says that.
Chris
snex
> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
>
>
>
> > In article <C221DE64.47BF%georg...@earthlink.net>,
> > George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> >>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> >>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> >>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
> >>> reason
> >>> to...
>
> >> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
> >> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
> >> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
> >> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
> >> horizon.
>
> >> George Evans
>
> > *
> > Does religion have a rational explanation?
>
> > God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made
> > the first human being?
>
> > That's a rational explanation?
>
> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
> assemble themselves.
what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble
itself? if it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also
do so is out the window.
>
> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
> all that there is?
>
can you show something else? of course you cant, by definition!
therefore, asking us to believe in your imaginary friends is just as
absurd as us asking you to believe in some other imaginary friend.
> George Evans
Free Lunch
Historically, where was the killing rate higher, in Christian areas or
in areas that did not have the Ten Commandments?
Free Lunch
It depends on how they are interpreted. If the "God" group of
commandments (the first three or four, depending on who is counting) is
used to justify the killing of religious enemies, then those
commandments cause evil. If the command to honor parents is used to
oppress people or the command against theft is used to keep the rich
rich and the poor starving, then those commands cause evil. All in all,
it is far too simple to be useful.
>I predict, based on my hypothesis, that soon, China will begin experience
>massive problems with graft and corruption, and will decide to "follow God's
>law" possibly calling it something like an opiate.
China already has a perfectly good tradition from Confucius, why would
they bother with a totally foreign tradition, particularly one that has
historically been tied to oppression from foreigners?
Free Lunch
Life did not come from nothing. Life is a self-sustaining biochemical
reaction that came from earlier chemical reactions. Nothing about life
is evidence for a supernatural being.
Frank J
> in article 1174262618.686855.185...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Frank J at
> f...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
Where's your evidence of ~6000 years ago, and will you challenge OECs
and IDers with it? Note: please offer something new, something that
you can support on its own merits, without the same old "problems with
mainstream science explanations" that even creationists have refuted.
By "once" do you mean that all current life is descended from a
primordial cell that existed merely ~6000 years ago, or do you mean
that many different species were created separately?
Frank J
> in article n9pqv29qs9ddpbnq6urb627411b9n06...@4ax.com, Desertphile at
> desertph...@nospam.org wrote on 3/18/07 9:14 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:06:22 GMT, George Evans
> > <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> >> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> >>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> >>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> >>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
> >>> reason to...
>
> >> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand scope
> >> of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to something
> >> better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator at that
> >> point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the horizon.
>
> > that there is no evidence for them, therefore science does not include them.
> > As soon as evidence for these "creators" is discovered, science will include
> > them.
>
> > Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
>
> Well, let me explain it to you. Science will never comprehend a supernatural
> creator because He can't be measured by you. He just is. He is outside your
> biggest box.
That would be the position of science-literate theists who accept
evolution and a ~4-billion year history of l. In stark contrast, IDers
think that they found some designer "in the box." And even though they
claimed to have outsmarted him/her/it, they do not rule out that it
could be God.
Greg Esres
make Finney look like an idiot.
<sigh> The odds seem low.
Frank J
> in article 1174262975.861976.56...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Frank J at
> f...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:09 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 7:00 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1174221445.396487.39...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> >> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> >> 5:37 AM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
> >>> of a supernatural being...
>
> >> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> >> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> >> could kill the undesirables.
>
> > Unfortunately anti-evolution activists only kept nine of them.
>
> Then it would appear that you agree.
Only with the part that we should keep them. Speaking only for myself,
however, I would not be any different without them.
AC
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in article 1174221445....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
> 5:37 AM:
>
><snip>
>
>> Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
>> of a supernatural being...
>
> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
> could kill the undesirables.
How exactly has the Ten Commandments ever prevented this? Let's remember
that this comes from the same book where a numbe of crimes prescribe
stoning as a means to eliminate undesirables (rude children and witches
come to mind).
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Cite where abiogenesis claims that anything "assembled itself". By
citations I mean peer reviewed or primary literature, and not some
Creationist's strawman bullshit.
>
> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
> all that there is?
Who said that science ever proclaimed this?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
George Evans
Jones at earle...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 9:22 PM:
> In article <C2231A40.49C8%geor...@earthlink.net>,
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174223951.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/18/07 6:19 AM:
<snip>
>>> Wrong again. Where is "beginnings" mentioned in the bill? They are talking
>>> about the creation of things, but just reread the questions. What is your
>>> definition of abiogenesis and how does the creation of humans and the
>>> universe fit into it? Just read the first question again. There seems to
>>> be a lot of things covered by that statement, so what? The senator was not
>>> concentrating on abiogenesis was he. You just wanted to emphasis it for some
>>> reason.
>>>
>> I picked abiogenesis because it is a very important question that you have no
>> answer for, and you said you believe science *does* have an answer for
>> *everything*.
>>
When I was in college I was faced with the issue of God and nature. A few
years later I read a story that really resonated with my conclusions. I wish
I could find the story, I think it was called "The Mice in the Piano". The
idea was that there was a community of mice in an old piano who regularly
would hear beautiful music coming from somewhere inside. Successive
generation saw ever bolder young mice venture farther into the piano to see
where the music was coming from. The first found that vibrating strings were
the cause, the next the hammers, etc. I think the last line was something
like "and the piano player played on."
This fit with my emerging thought that God had created the universe so that
man could learn about him, similar to why a pianist might play music. Now,
when you describe discovery as a real estate take over I can see we are not
on the same page. What you see as a defeat for God I see as a win. Far from
a process of squeezing God into smaller and smaller gaps, I see a process of
understanding God better and better.
George Evans
George Evans
at ges...@boundvortex.com wrote on 3/18/07 10:28 PM:
But the beginning is a unique point.
George Evans
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/19/07 3:58 AM:
> lying about what I wrote...
Here you go. It's how the whole thread started:
in article 1173959352.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> to...
Particularly, the last sentence.
George Evans
Greg Esres
<<But the beginning is a unique point. >>
Yes, but you made a prediction about the future, that we can never
know about that unique point. That remains to be seen. We know a lot
about the early universe, even though it too was a unique point.
Earle Jones
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
**
And what evidence do you have for that assembly? You claim that
dust, water, and air were assembled into the first man. What is
your evidence?
NOTE: A 2000 year old bronze age fragment is not evidence.
**
> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
> all that there is?
And what evidence do you have that there is more than this?
Present it here, please. Keep in mind the guidance of David Hume:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
--David Hume (1711-1776)
earle
*
Stuart
> in article 1174282104.389156.298...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Greg Esres
You're assuming there was a beginning.
Stuart
Stuart
> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>
> <snip>
>
> > ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> > supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> > We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> > not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> > to...
>
> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
> horizon.
>
> George Evans
Well you know George.,100 years ago nobody had a clue as to what the
energy source for the Sun was.
How well did "God did it?" answer that one?
Explain why "God did it?" is any more useful now than it was 100 years
ago.
Its funny how some people hang there hopes that there world view is
correct on
a nascent theory being false.
Stuart
Ron O
> in article 1174301909.769339.263...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/19/07 3:58 AM:
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>
> > ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> > supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> > We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> > not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> > to...
>
> Particularly, the last sentence.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So where do I say what you claim? You are just obfuscating again.
Why should science resort to the design alternative until we have a
reason to? Why try to fill a hole with the design alternative when
that alternative has a 100% failure rate of filling such a hole once
we can actually get around to testing it? You just have to obfuscate
and lie because you don't have an answer to that question. It is a
simple fact. Just put up your counter example and you might have a
reasonable chance of trying what you are doing. Otherwise you are
just obfuscating and lying. You have to admit that your alternative
has a zero success rate, so why should science resort to your
alternative unless there is some reason to do it? Obviously, just
because we do not know some answer at this time, isn't a good reason
and has never been found to be a good reason to do it.
Why be dishonest? Just admit that you don't have an example of your
designer doing anything that we can study in nature and that you know
that you don't have an argument. Why try and make it look like I said
something wrong, when it wouldn't change the fact that you are just
making baseless claims and stupid assertions?
You have to know that you are being dishonest or you would just defend
your methodology instead of prevericate. Why do you have to
prevericate? Why do the other guys like you have to prevericate? Why
can't you go to any creationist source and get an honest valid
argument worth anything to defend your position? Does it make you
feel better to know that there are other guys just as dishonest as you
are pushing the same stupid arguments? What good does that do you?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> in article 1174301909.769339.263...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/19/07 3:58 AM:
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>
> > ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> > supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> > We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> > not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any reason
> > to...
>
> Particularly, the last sentence.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just to leave no doubt that you are misusing my quote I'll put the
whole paragraph up.
QUOTE:
The author expects the correct answer is that we can't make that call
at this time. It is not yes or no or black and white. It isn't a
simple answer. The problem with the creationists is that they do not
like the correct answer because it still doesn't do them any good.
Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we
find it. We just have no reason to put one in. Some supernatural
designer could have been tweeking things in some unmeasurable way for
billions of years and we wouldn't know it. We might not be able to
detect such design intervention today because the designer might not
be doing anything or as Behe suggested in court, his designer might
be
dead. The simple fact is that science does not have to resort to the
design alternative because we do not have any reason to. Science
can't deal with something where we do not have any good evidence that
that something even exists to deal with. We can't answer this
question any better than we can answer the question whether or not
the
designer is an invisible pink unicorn, or blue or green or even a
unicorn.
END QUOTE:
So you are wrong again or just trying to lie again. Incompetence or
dishonesty are not good choices to choose from are they?
You know how you have to counter this argument, but since you can't do
it, you have to lie about it. Does it ever bother you that you have
to resort to dishonesty to make it look like you have a valid
argument? Wouldn't you rather have a valid argument?
Ron Okimoto
Ian Smith
>
> Well, let me explain it to you. Science will never comprehend a supernatural
> creator because He can't be measured by you. He just is.
Is he? Where is your evidence?
regards, Ian
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07
6:25 AM:
> On Mar 19, 1:24 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174270201.226301.300...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> chris.linthomp...@gmail.com at chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
>> 7:10 PM:
>> Is this all to say that it isn't a good idea to follow the ten commandments?
>>
> Can you even begin to grasp how irrelevant this is? I believe it's a good idea
> to come to a complete stop at "STOP" signs, too, but that doesn't make it a
> scientific hypothesis.
>
> You have yet to come up with a single case in which the existence of a deity
> played a positive role in any scientific advance.
>
> But don't feel too bad- no one else has, either.
We seem to be unlearning a lesson that we have had to learn many times
before. Mankind without God behaves even worse than mankind with God. When
we see ourselves as the masters of our destiny, we often try to forcefully
remove undesirables from the population. We need God to tell us NO.
>> I predict, based on my hypothesis, that soon, China will begin experience
>> massive problems with graft and corruption, and will decide to "follow God's
>> law" possibly calling it something like an opiate.
>>
> China _already_ has massive problems with graft and corruption. So what? Do
> you think that's some sort of result of the Chinese not following the Ten
> Commandments? That's silly. (If you had said it was from communism I would
> have agreed. Note that communism and atheism are not the same thing).
The two are siblings.
> Since your computer apparently does not receive news from south of the
> Mason-Dixon line, I would take this opportunity that several government
> investigative agencies have found that over two BILLION dollars has already
> been lost to graft and corruption in Louisiana and Mississippi, during the
> Katrina reconstruction. That makes China- and every other nation on the
> planet- look like a piker. Keep in mind that's taking place in the most
> heavily Christian part of one of the most predominantly Christian nations on
> earth.
>
> I'd say your 10 Commandments aren't working all that well, Mr. Evans.
So you are saying that Louisiana is known as the holiest of holies?? I think
you need to look a little deeper.
George Evans
George Evans
> On Mar 19, 1:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article mnkrv21a6ofbvlb16fhfp878g0ojl50...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
>> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 3/18/07 5:02 PM:
<snip>
>>> So you assert. No evidence at all supports your claim.
>>
>> We are where we started. I think that fact that life came from nothing
>> supports my claim.
>>
> Life didn't come from nothing. Life came from materials present on the
> planet the instant before life began. Even your bible says that.
You are being obtuse. I can play, too. You are ignoring the obvious
absurdity of saying that life popped out of a puddle.
George Evans
Free Lunch
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<C22539B0.4D56%geor...@earthlink.net>:
The obvious absurdity is your peculiar misrepresentation of what the
earth was like before life began on earth.
George Evans
sn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 10:03 AM:
> On Mar 19, 12:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
>> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
<snip>
>>> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>>>
>>> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made the first
>>> human being?
>>>
>>> That's a rational explanation?
>>
>> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
>> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
>> assemble themselves.
>
> what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble
> itself? if it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also
> do so is out the window.
May I then ask you what caused the Big Bang? How far shall we go with this?
>> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
>> all that there is?
>>
> can you show something else? of course you cant, by definition! therefore,
> asking us to believe in your imaginary friends is just as absurd as us asking
> you to believe in some other imaginary friend.
You don't have an imaginary friend, you don't have imagination. All you have
is a little miserable box.
George Evans
George Evans
fn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 12:58 PM:
> On Mar 19, 1:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> I'm not proposing a god-of-the-gaps theory. I'm introducing the God of THE
>> GAP. It's one big gap called abiogenesis. A gap so big you have cut it off
>> from the evolutionary debate so you can continue fighting.
>>
>> As far as speculating about your questions: I would guess He did it like a
>> science teacher sets up an experiment. He puts things together from parts and
>> then turns it on. I think He did it once on this earth around 6,000 years
>> ago.
>>
>> Now, what do you have to say in answer to your questions?
>>
> Where's your evidence of ~6000 years ago, and will you challenge OECs and
> IDers with it? Note: please offer something new, something that you can
> support on its own merits, without the same old "problems with mainstream
> science explanations" that even creationists have refuted.
>
> By "once" do you mean that all current life is descended from a primordial
> cell that existed merely ~6000 years ago, or do you mean that many different
> species were created separately?
I offered my views as a courtesy. They are not in question in this thread.
What's in question is the views of the chairman of the Tenn Board of
Education.
George Evans
snex
> in article 1174323838.914244.131...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 10:03 AM:
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
> >> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>
> >>> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made the first
> >>> human being?
>
> >>> That's a rational explanation?
>
> >> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
> >> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
> >> assemble themselves.
>
> > what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble
> > itself? if it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also
> > do so is out the window.
>
> May I then ask you what caused the Big Bang? How far shall we go with this?
the correct answer is "we dont know, but we are working on it." you
need to learn that answer, so you can stop asserting things you dont
actually know.
>
> >> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
> >> all that there is?
>
> > can you show something else? of course you cant, by definition! therefore,
> > asking us to believe in your imaginary friends is just as absurd as us asking
> > you to believe in some other imaginary friend.
>
> You don't have an imaginary friend, you don't have imagination. All you have
> is a little miserable box.
you should try atheism, and youll see just how non-miserable it is
living without the fear of theism.
>
> George Evans
George Evans
mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:27 PM:
Sinners and undesirables are not synonymous.
George Evans
George Evans
mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:31 PM:
<snip>
> Cite where abiogenesis claims that anything "assembled itself". By
> citations I mean peer reviewed or primary literature, and not some
> Creationist's strawman bullshit.
Cite where abiogenesis claims anything else.
George Evans
AC
When you make silly strawmen like this, it strikes me that perhaps you
don't actually have any serious criticism of the theory, that the only
way you can actually deal with it is to formulate your own version which
so little resembles what abiogenesis research says that you don't have
to go to any trouble at all in actually learning anything.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in article 1174323838.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
> sn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 10:03 AM:
>
>> On Mar 19, 12:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
>>> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>>>>
>>>> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made the first
>>>> human being?
>>>>
>>>> That's a rational explanation?
>>>
>>> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
>>> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
>>> assemble themselves.
>>
>> what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble
>> itself? if it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also
>> do so is out the window.
>
> May I then ask you what caused the Big Bang? How far shall we go with this?
>
Why does it need a cause?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
> in article slrnevu3h4.2tk....@nobody.here, AC at
> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:27 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:00:20 GMT, George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article 1174221445....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
>>> chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 3/18/07
>>> 5:37 AM:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Not one successful hypothesis-not one!- has ever been based on the existence
>>>> of a supernatural being...
>>>>
>>> I think the hypothesis that mankind should keep the ten commandments was
>>> pretty successful, especially when without them we might have decided we
>>> could kill the undesirables.
>>>
>> How exactly has the Ten Commandments ever prevented this? Let's remember that
>> this comes from the same book where a numbe of crimes prescribe stoning as a
>> means to eliminate undesirables (rude children and witches come to mind).
>
> Sinners and undesirables are not synonymous.
They sure seem to be in the Bible.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Let me ask you, does a crystal "assemble" itself?
And since when was the burden of proof of your claim put on to me?
If you can't answer the question, then just admit it. We're not
morons here, that this cheap chest-beating means a goddamn thing.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
George Evans
bigd...@aol.com wrote on 3/19/07 10:32 PM:
> On Mar 17, 3:06 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
>>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
>>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
>>> reason
>>> to...
>>
>> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
>> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
>> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
>> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
>> horizon.
>>
> Well you know George.,100 years ago nobody had a clue as to what the
> energy source for the Sun was.
>
> How well did "God did it?" answer that one?
>
> Explain why "God did it?" is any more useful now than it was 100 years
> ago.
One hundred years ago there was a lot we didn't know about the sun. I think
there is far less left to know about abiogenesis. Chemically we know the
results and we know the starting point.
George Evans
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/20/07 4:29 AM:
> On Mar 19, 7:56 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174301909.769339.263...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/19/07 3:58 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 12:41 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> You said you had an answer for everything when you expressed confidence
>>>> that you would never need God as an answer. I do not deny that you have
>>>> answers of many other things. My only assertion here is only that you do
>>>> not have, and will never have a scientific answer for how life started.
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Another lie. Why do you have to lie. Demonstrate that I wrote
>>> anything of the kind. Since I'm a Christian it would surprise me to
>>> have said any such thing. Just go and try and find where I said that
>>> I would never need God as an answer. Just do it or appologize for
>>> lying about what I wrote...
>>
>> Here you go. It's how the whole thread started:
>>
>> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>>
>>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
>>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
>>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
>>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
>>> reason
>>> to...
>>
>> Particularly, the last sentence.
>>
> So where do I say what you claim? <snip>
You said, "...science does not have to resort to the design alternative..."
That is the same as saying science does not need God.
George Evans
Stuart
> in article 1174368755.327280.263...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Stuart at
> bigdak...@aol.com wrote on 3/19/07 10:32 PM:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 3:06 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1173959352.059967.232...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> >> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/15/07 4:49 AM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> ...Science has an answer, but science can't rule out that some type of
> >>> supernatural designer hasn't been involved with the creation as we find it.
> >>> We just have no reason to put one in...The simple fact is that science does
> >>> not have to resort to the design alternative because we do not have any
> >>> reason
> >>> to...
>
> >> I would like to point out something you guys keep missing. In the grand
> >> scope of the senator's question, science sure does need to resort to
> >> something better when it comes to abiogenesis. You could sure use a creator
> >> at that point. You have no rational explanation and none appearing on the
> >> horizon.
>
> > Well you know George.,100 years ago nobody had a clue as to what the
> > energy source for the Sun was.
>
> > How well did "God did it?" answer that one?
>
> > Explain why "God did it?" is any more useful now than it was 100 years
> > ago.
>
> One hundred years ago there was a lot we didn't know about the sun. I think
> there is far less left to know about abiogenesis.
based on what?
Chemically we know the
> results and we know the starting point.
100 years ago we knew what the Sun was made of.
That didn't help much. 100 years ago.
Swing and a miss George.
Stuart
Stuart
> in article 1174390163.549008.140...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/20/07 4:29 AM:
Well, would you care to explain where F=MA needs God?
Stuart
Ron O
> in article 1174390163.549008.140...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/20/07 4:29 AM:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if your interpretation of what I said was true how do you explain
the rest of the paragraph that you quote mined from? I didn't say
what you claim did I?
Why prevaricate? Why be dishonest? Why don't you just present your
example of your designer doing anything in nature. If you could then
you would have an argument against my assertion that science does not
have to resort to the design alternative. Untill you can come up with
that one example what I said is a fact. Since you would rather
blather on with dishonest interpretations of what I claimed instead of
addressing the real issue what kind of dishonest idiot does that make
you?
Really, why prevaricate if you really have an argument? Why lie?
This is your religion that you are trying to defend. Why do you think
that I call it "your designer?" The dishonesty that you have to
consistentl resort to makes it look like your designer is that other
fellow that guys like you claim to be so worried about. It certainly
isn't the one that I worship. In your theology who is the king of
desception and lies? Why do you worship him and do his work? I admit
that I don't believe that satan exists. I just look around me and I
can see that humans have more than enough ability to stray all by
themselves, but what do you believe and how does it square with what
you and just about everyone like you repeatedly get caught doing? How
does it square with the latest creationist ID scam that the dishonest
creationist perps were caught running? Why did Bonsell and Buckingham
lie under oath to try and protect their dishonest scam? Why can't you
go to a place like AIG and bring back an honest creationist argument
for evaluation? You would know the answer to those questions better
than I would because you go along with it and perpetrate the
dishonesty yourself for some reason, so what is the reason? What is
your excuse?
Ron Okimoto
George Evans
lu...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 3/20/07 4:40 PM:
Exactly.
George Evans
Harry K
> in article 1174334319.879256.316...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Frank J at
> f...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 12:58 PM:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds like you are tucking your tail and running there George.
Harry K
George Evans
mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/21/07 9:32 AM:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:31:04 GMT,
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article slrnevu3no.2tk....@nobody.here, AC at
>> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:31 PM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Cite where abiogenesis claims that anything "assembled itself". By
>>> citations I mean peer reviewed or primary literature, and not some
>>> Creationist's strawman bullshit.
>>>
>> Cite where abiogenesis claims anything else.
>
> Let me ask you, does a crystal "assemble" itself?
Forget the crystal analogy.
George Evans
George Evans
mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/21/07 9:30 AM:
See how fun that was, Chris?
George Evans
George Evans
sn...@comcast.net wrote on 3/20/07 7:14 PM:
> On Mar 20, 7:25 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174323838.914244.131...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 10:03 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 12:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
>>>> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>>>>>
>>>>> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made the
>>>>> first human being?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a rational explanation?
>>>>>
>>>> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
>>>> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
>>>> assemble themselves.
>>>>
>>> what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble itself? if
>>> it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also do so is out the
>>> window.
>>>
>> May I then ask you what caused the Big Bang? How far shall we go with this?
>>
> the correct answer is "we dont know, but we are working on it." you need to
> learn that answer, so you can stop asserting things you dont actually know.
I don't know if that's the "correct" answer. It usually is a CYA response.
If it's the best you can do, I suggest you learn to not assert that you know
God won't have anything to do with it.
>>>> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
>>>> all that there is?
>>>>
>>> can you show something else? of course you cant, by definition! therefore,
>>> asking us to believe in your imaginary friends is just as absurd as us
>>> asking you to believe in some other imaginary friend.
>>>
>> You don't have an imaginary friend, you don't have imagination. All you have
>> is a little miserable box.
>>
> you should try atheism, and youll see just how non-miserable it is living
> without the fear of theism.
What if you fear loneliness and desolation?
George Evans
AC
> in article slrnf02ngd.3uc....@nobody.here, AC at
> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/21/07 9:32 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:31:04 GMT,
>> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article slrnevu3no.2tk....@nobody.here, AC at
>>> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:31 PM:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Cite where abiogenesis claims that anything "assembled itself". By
>>>> citations I mean peer reviewed or primary literature, and not some
>>>> Creationist's strawman bullshit.
>>>>
>>> Cite where abiogenesis claims anything else.
>>
>> Let me ask you, does a crystal "assemble" itself?
>
> Forget the crystal analogy.
Why should I? It seems that your distinct lack of desire to deal with
it indicates something pretty important about your... um... skepticism.
Does a crystal assemble itself?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
George Evans
bigd...@aol.com wrote on 3/22/07 1:05 AM:
> On Mar 21, 7:49 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174368755.327280.263...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Stuart at
>> bigdak...@aol.com wrote on 3/19/07 10:32 PM:
<snip>
>>> Well you know George.,100 years ago nobody had a clue as to what the energy
>>> source for the Sun was.
>>>
>>> How well did "God did it?" answer that one?
>>>
>>> Explain why "God did it?" is any more useful now than it was 100 years ago.
>>>
>> One hundred years ago there was a lot we didn't know about the sun. I think
>> there is far less left to know about abiogenesis.
>>
> based on what?
My own thoughts mixed with what I know.
>> Chemically we know the results and we know the starting point.
>>
> 100 years ago we knew what the Sun was made of.
>
> That didn't help much. 100 years ago.
That's because the interior of the sun is an extreme environment and the
reaction were nuclear. This is not an issue with abiogenesis. If the process
is self assembling we should be able to get it to do it's thing. According
to you, we have a pretty good idea of the environment at the time.
George Evans
AC
George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in article 1174550745.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Stuart at
> bigd...@aol.com wrote on 3/22/07 1:05 AM:
>
>> On Mar 21, 7:49 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article 1174368755.327280.263...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Stuart at
>>> bigdak...@aol.com wrote on 3/19/07 10:32 PM:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Well you know George.,100 years ago nobody had a clue as to what the energy
>>>> source for the Sun was.
>>>>
>>>> How well did "God did it?" answer that one?
>>>>
>>>> Explain why "God did it?" is any more useful now than it was 100 years ago.
>>>>
>>> One hundred years ago there was a lot we didn't know about the sun. I think
>>> there is far less left to know about abiogenesis.
>>>
>> based on what?
>
> My own thoughts mixed with what I know.
Can you tell us where one begins and the other ends.
>
>>> Chemically we know the results and we know the starting point.
>>>
>> 100 years ago we knew what the Sun was made of.
>>
>> That didn't help much. 100 years ago.
>
> That's because the interior of the sun is an extreme environment and the
> reaction were nuclear. This is not an issue with abiogenesis. If the process
> is self assembling we should be able to get it to do it's thing. According
> to you, we have a pretty good idea of the environment at the time.
And we still don't have a good handle on the process. Knowledge and research
doesn't flip into existence just to please your demands. If you wish to
sink yourself into a god-of-the-gaps belief about the beginning of life,
then so be it. Science doesn't operate that way in any field.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
George Evans
mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/22/07 8:01 PM:
Yes. But you aren't going to like where this leads.
George Evans
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/22/07 4:34 AM:
You have your paragraph in front of you. I've reread it several times now.
Why don't you lay out the phrases that you think change anything. Otherwise,
I will say that mining is an efficient economical process which must be
applied to your *piles* of manure.
> Why prevaricate? Why be dishonest? Why don't you just present your
> example of your designer doing anything in nature...
OK, since you have asked so many times, and even though it is not necessary
in the context of this thread, I will give you an example. About 20 years
ago I was burning out engines on a regular basis because I couldn't remember
to check my oil level. I tried all kinds of things but nothing worked. Then
one morning I prayed that I didn't want to forget, so He was going to have
to change me.
The next time I stopped for gas, the thought came to my mind, almost as if
spoken, to check the oil level, which I did as if I had been doing all the
time. The most rational explanation is that my brain, a part of nature, was
changed intelligently, on request.
George Evans
Ron O
> in article 1174563263.114372.215...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/22/07 4:34 AM:
You read the paragraph and see how it fits into this claim. It was
the one that you made and were trying to defend, remember? Just read
the posts. I've been consistent, but have you?
"You said you had an answer for everything when you expressed
confidence that
you would never need God as an answer. I do not deny that you have
answers
of many other things. My only assertion here is only that you do not
have,
and will never have a scientific answer for how life started. "
Just read up more posts and see how you weasel around the issue.
Moving the goalposts is a common dishonest tactic with guys like you
when you blow it and can't defend your arguments honestly, can you
possibly deny it. So put up or shut up, where in that paragraph,
written before you lied in the statement quoted above, do I say any
such thing. Piles of manure is all you seem to be able to produce.
>
> > Why prevaricate? Why be dishonest? Why don't you just present your
> > example of your designer doing anything in nature...
>
> OK, since you have asked so many times, and even though it is not necessary
> in the context of this thread, I will give you an example. About 20 years
> ago I was burning out engines on a regular basis because I couldn't remember
> to check my oil level. I tried all kinds of things but nothing worked. Then
> one morning I prayed that I didn't want to forget, so He was going to have
> to change me.
>
> The next time I stopped for gas, the thought came to my mind, almost as if
> spoken, to check the oil level, which I did as if I had been doing all the
> time. The most rational explanation is that my brain, a part of nature, was
> changed intelligently, on request.
>
> George Evans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And this is evidence for what? How is this verifiable? Even if you
really did this, where would you put in on a scale of 1 to 10 (10
being the most reliable evidence) in terms of evidence you could
trust? If it gets more than a zero (not even worth puting on the
scale) you are over rating it and you know it. Why don't you submit
it to the Discovery Institute and tell them to start making a list of
such things so that everyone will know how bogus this junk is.
I do give you credit for trying, but if you were serious all you have
left is the insanity defense. Really, how incompetent would you have
to be to consider something like that to be the evidence you need to
support your claims? Insane or dishonest, what a choice.
What was that about manure? Have you ever done a self evaluation?
Why will you have to claim that you were only joking and dishonestly
trying to make fun of the issue so that you could pretend to answer
while not answering? I doubt that you were serious, but you could be
mentally incompetent. Is this just a way of life for you?
Ron Okimoto
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/24/07 5:11 AM:
> On Mar 24, 1:04 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> OK, since you have asked so many times, and even though it is not necessary
>> in the context of this thread, I will give you an example. About 20 years ago
>> I was burning out engines on a regular basis because I couldn't remember to
>> check my oil level. I tried all kinds of things but nothing worked. Then one
>> morning I prayed that I didn't want to forget, so He was going to have to
>> change me.
>>
>> The next time I stopped for gas, the thought came to my mind, almost as if
>> spoken, to check the oil level, which I did as if I had been doing all the
>> time. The most rational explanation is that my brain, a part of nature, was
>> changed intelligently, on request.
>>
> And this is evidence for what?
That the Designer affects nature, just like you asked.
> How is this verifiable?
It is verified every time I stop for gas although by now I think it's become
a habit.
> Even if you really
> did this, where would you put in on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most
> reliable evidence) in terms of evidence you could trust?
10 for me and apparently, somehow, a zero for you. And it is why I will
fight you to the end of my life.
> If it gets more than
> a zero (not even worth puting on the scale) you are over rating it and you
> know it. Why don't you submit it to the Discovery Institute and tell them to
> start making a list of such things so that everyone will know how bogus this
> junk is.
>
> I do give you credit for trying...
Pardon me for interrupting but I just have to ask. On a scale of 1 to 10,
how do you rate the significance of that credit?
> ...but if you were serious all you have left is the insanity defense. Really,
> how incompetent would you have to be to consider something like that to be the
> evidence you need to support your claims? Insane or dishonest, what a choice.
>
> What was that about manure?
Sorry, I have to interrupt again, and whisper to you. We are wadding in it
right now.
> Have you ever done a self evaluation? Why will
> you have to claim that you were only joking and dishonestly trying to make fun
> of the issue so that you could pretend to answer while not answering? I doubt
> that you were serious, but you could be mentally incompetent. Is this just a
> way of life for you?
Three lies for you, none for me.
George Evans
AC
> in article slrnf06gog.2hg....@nobody.here, AC at
> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/22/07 8:01 PM:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:34:07 GMT,
>> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> in article slrnf02ngd.3uc....@nobody.here, AC at
>>> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/21/07 9:32 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:31:04 GMT,
>>>> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> in article slrnevu3no.2tk....@nobody.here, AC at
>>>>> mightym...@gmail.com wrote on 3/19/07 3:31 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite where abiogenesis claims that anything "assembled itself". By
>>>>>> citations I mean peer reviewed or primary literature, and not some
>>>>>> Creationist's strawman bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cite where abiogenesis claims anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Let me ask you, does a crystal "assemble" itself?
>>>
>>> Forget the crystal analogy.
>>
>> Why should I? It seems that your distinct lack of desire to deal with
>> it indicates something pretty important about your... um... skepticism.
>>
>> Does a crystal assemble itself?
>
> Yes. But you aren't going to like where this leads.
What, angels get all those molecules to line up nicely?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ron O
> in article 1174738317.863702.126...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/24/07 5:11 AM:
>
> > On Mar 24, 1:04 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> OK, since you have asked so many times, and even though it is not necessary
> >> in the context of this thread, I will give you an example. About 20 years ago
> >> I was burning out engines on a regular basis because I couldn't remember to
> >> check my oil level. I tried all kinds of things but nothing worked. Then one
> >> morning I prayed that I didn't want to forget, so He was going to have to
> >> change me.
>
> >> The next time I stopped for gas, the thought came to my mind, almost as if
> >> spoken, to check the oil level, which I did as if I had been doing all the
> >> time. The most rational explanation is that my brain, a part of nature, was
> >> changed intelligently, on request.
>
> > And this is evidence for what?
>
> That the Designer affects nature, just like you asked.
Why do you think that Behe and Minnich didin't put up similar
"evidence" for the designer during their court testimony? Do you
think that it has even the slightest thing to do with the fact that no
credible person believes that such things are evidence for anything?
Why would Behe have to claim that his designer might be dead if he
could verify the existence of his designer so easily?
>
> > How is this verifiable?
>
> It is verified every time I stop for gas although by now I think it's become
> a habit.
Now, some people might think that you are trying to be funny to
dishonestly avoid answering the question in a straight forward
manner. Some people might think that you are just incompetent and
being serious. Which ones would be correct?
>
> > Even if you really
> > did this, where would you put in on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most
> > reliable evidence) in terms of evidence you could trust?
>
> 10 for me and apparently, somehow, a zero for you. And it is why I will
> fight you to the end of my life.
You aren't fighting me, you are fighting a reality that you can't cope
with. This could be just blowing smoke to avoid answering the
question, but how can anyone tell?
>
> > If it gets more than
> > a zero (not even worth puting on the scale) you are over rating it and you
> > know it. Why don't you submit it to the Discovery Institute and tell them to
> > start making a list of such things so that everyone will know how bogus this
> > junk is.
>
> > I do give you credit for trying...
>
> Pardon me for interrupting but I just have to ask. On a scale of 1 to 10,
> how do you rate the significance of that credit?
About a 5. Most creationists like yourself just pretend that they
don't even have to acknowledge the fact that they don't have anything
worth mentioning, and just don't answer at all. Just look at Sean
Pitman. He has been blowing smoke for over half a decade. He claimed
to have evidence for his alternative that was better or just as good
as the evidence that science has for common descent, but never made
good on that claim. By comparison your answer rates pretty
significantly, but it is marred by the fact that you could just be
blowing more smoke to keep from answering the question honestly. You
might think that voicing such a ridiculous answer somehow argues
against having to answer. You could be serious, but if you were
reading such a post and you thought that the person was serious, what
would you think of such a person? Why would Behe claim that the
designer might be dead, if you could verify the existence of a
designer so easily? Why do the ID prevaricators have to talk about
things like the Cambrian explosion and claim that their designer
fiddled with things over half a billion years ago, or the flagellum
possibly a couple of billion years ago if they had an example that
they could put forward like yours?
>
> > ...but if you were serious all you have left is the insanity defense. Really,
> > how incompetent would you have to be to consider something like that to be the
> > evidence you need to support your claims? Insane or dishonest, what a choice.
>
> > What was that about manure?
>
> Sorry, I have to interrupt again, and whisper to you. We are wadding in it
> right now.
Your own material. So you might just be dishonestly obfuscating the
issue to avoid giving an honest answer. What good does it do you?
Why not have a real answer? Is it better to be thought of as
dishonest or as incompetent? Why are you forced to make such a
choice? Wouldn't it be better to be honest?
>
> > Have you ever done a self evaluation? Why will
> > you have to claim that you were only joking and dishonestly trying to make fun
> > of the issue so that you could pretend to answer while not answering? I doubt
> > that you were serious, but you could be mentally incompetent. Is this just a
> > way of life for you?
>
> Three lies for you, none for me.
>
> George Evans
Have you ever told the truth in this thread? How can we tell? It is
a catch 22. You could be telling the truth, but then you would be an
obvious incompetent and you would have the insanity defense to fall
back on. If you aren't telling the truth then you are dishonestly
avoiding answering the question. You can verify what I've said by
reading things like the Dover court transcripts and looking for any
evidence that you might be able to put up. None of it included
prayer, and even the guys that put it forward didn't claim that it was
good enough to be called science. In fact, they claimed that they
hadn't bothered to test any of their ID notions, and that no one that
they knew of had bothered to test any of the ID junk, and that not a
single scientific publication supported ID. So did they lie under
oath about that, or are you lying now? Why can't you go to the
Discovery Institute and get a list of your type of evidence? Why do
you think that the Discovery Institute doesn't use the prayer
argument?
Ron Okimoto
snex
> in article 1174443277.105138.77...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, snex at
> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/20/07 7:14 PM:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 7:25 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1174323838.914244.131...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
> >> s...@comcast.net wrote on 3/19/07 10:03 AM:
>
> >>> On Mar 19, 12:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> in article earle.jones-A4D7EA.17035418032...@netnews.comcast.net, Earle
> >>>> Jones at earle.jo...@comcast.net wrote on 3/18/07 5:03 PM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>>> Does religion have a rational explanation?
>
> >>>>> God came down out of the sky, grabbed a handful of dust, and made the
> >>>>> first human being?
>
> >>>>> That's a rational explanation?
>
> >>>> What is not rational about it? All that life is made of is contained in
> >>>> dust, water and air. I am just claiming they were assembled and didn't
> >>>> assemble themselves.
>
> >>> what assembled them? was it assembled too or did it just assemble itself? if
> >>> it assembled itself, your argument that life couldnt also do so is out the
> >>> window.
>
> >> May I then ask you what caused the Big Bang? How far shall we go with this?
>
> > the correct answer is "we dont know, but we are working on it." you need to
> > learn that answer, so you can stop asserting things you dont actually know.
>
> I don't know if that's the "correct" answer. It usually is a CYA response.
> If it's the best you can do, I suggest you learn to not assert that you know
> God won't have anything to do with it.
you have to first demonstrate that this god fellow exists before you
go saying hes responsible for this or that feature of nature.
the bible says that true believers will be able to heal the sick by
laying their hands on them. if a christian cures stephen hawking by a
laying on of hands, i will consider that sufficient evidence that the
god of the bible exists. so, are you willing to do it?
>
> >>>> Now, how rational is it to claim that all that you can see and measure, is
> >>>> all that there is?
>
> >>> can you show something else? of course you cant, by definition! therefore,
> >>> asking us to believe in your imaginary friends is just as absurd as us
> >>> asking you to believe in some other imaginary friend.
>
> >> You don't have an imaginary friend, you don't have imagination. All you have
> >> is a little miserable box.
>
> > you should try atheism, and youll see just how non-miserable it is living
> > without the fear of theism.
>
> What if you fear loneliness and desolation?
then get a friend. a real one. there are 6 billion to choose from.
>
> George Evans
George Evans
roki...@cox.net wrote on 3/25/07 5:15 AM:
> On Mar 24, 12:47 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1174738317.863702.126...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
>> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/24/07 5:11 AM:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 1:04 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> OK, since you have asked so many times, and even though it is not necessary
>>>> in the context of this thread, I will give you an example. About 20 years
>>>> ago I was burning out engines on a regular basis because I couldn't
>>>> remember to check my oil level. I tried all kinds of things but nothing
>>>> worked. Then one morning I prayed that I didn't want to forget, so He was
>>>> going to have to change me.
>>>>
>>>> The next time I stopped for gas, the thought came to my mind, almost as if
>>>> spoken, to check the oil level, which I did as if I had been doing all the
>>>> time. The most rational explanation is that my brain, a part of nature, was
>>>> changed intelligently, on request.
>>>>
>>> And this is evidence for what?
>>>
>> That the Designer affects nature, just like you asked.
>>
> Why do you think that Behe and Minnich didin't put up similar "evidence" for
> the designer during their court testimony? Do you think that it has even the
> slightest thing to do with the fact that no credible person believes that such
> things are evidence for anything? Why would Behe have to claim that his
> designer might be dead if he could verify the existence of his designer so
> easily?
I wouldn't use it in court to substantiate a scientific position either. But
that's not what you asked me to do, was it? You asked me if I had any
evidence that God acts in nature, and I personally do. But I wouldn't expect
anyone else to accept it for themselves.
>>> How is this verifiable?
>>>
>> It is verified every time I stop for gas although by now I think it's become
>> a habit.
>>
> Now, some people might think that you are trying to be funny to dishonestly
> avoid answering the question in a straight forward manner. Some people might
> think that you are just incompetent and being serious. Which ones would be
> correct?
Neither, according to me, but each person must decide for himself.
>>> Even if you really did this, where would you put in on a scale of 1 to 10
>>> (10 being the most reliable evidence) in terms of evidence you could trust?
>>>
>> 10 for me and apparently, somehow, a zero for you. And it is why I will fight
>> you to the end of my life.
>>
> You aren't fighting me, you are fighting a reality that you can't cope with.
> This could be just blowing smoke to avoid answering the question, but how can
> anyone tell?
What reality would that be? There is no God?
>>> If it gets more than a zero (not even worth puting on the scale) you are
>>> over rating it and you know it. Why don't you submit it to the Discovery
>>> Institute and tell them to start making a list of such things so that
>>> everyone will know how bogus this junk is.
>>>
>>> I do give you credit for trying...
>>>
>> Pardon me for interrupting but I just have to ask. On a scale of 1 to 10, how
>> do you rate the significance of that credit?
>>
> About a 5. Most creationists like yourself just pretend that they don't even
> have to acknowledge the fact that they don't have anything worth mentioning,
> and just don't answer at all. Just look at Sean Pitman. He has been blowing
> smoke for over half a decade. He claimed to have evidence for his alternative
> that was better or just as good as the evidence that science has for common
> descent, but never made good on that claim. By comparison your answer rates
> pretty significantly, but it is marred by the fact that you could just be
> blowing more smoke to keep from answering the question honestly. You might
> think that voicing such a ridiculous answer somehow argues against having to
> answer. You could be serious, but if you were reading such a post and you
> thought that the person was serious, what would you think of such a person?
> Why would Behe claim that the designer might be dead, if you could verify the
> existence of a designer so easily? Why do the ID prevaricators have to talk
> about things like the Cambrian explosion and claim that their designer fiddled
> with things over half a billion years ago, or the flagellum possibly a couple
> of billion years ago if they had an example that they could put forward like
> yours?
I am guessing that Behe may never have experienced this kind of private
evidence because Catholics are not encouraged to approach God individually.
I, OTOH have never felt the need to even submit my experience to a religious
authority. If I had read a story like mine from someone else, I would be
skeptical that the person was merely interpreting a natural effect in an
emotional way. This is how I expect others to initially interpret my story.
I didn't tell it to convince you that there is a God. I told it to explain
why I think there is a God.
I also think that Sean may well have experience evidence of the same kind.
And I think your criticism of him is off target. He seems to hold his own
quit well and kicks butt on occasion, usually against daunting odds I must
say.
<snip>
George Evans
Ron O
> in article 1174824935.546224.160...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Ron O at
> rokim...@cox.net wrote on 3/25/07 5:15 AM:
The request was for verifiable evidence.
>
> >>> How is this verifiable?
>
> >> It is verified every time I stop for gas although by now I think it's become
> >> a habit.
>
> > Now, some people might think that you are trying to be funny to dishonestly
> > avoid answering the question in a straight forward manner. Some people might
> > think that you are just incompetent and being serious. Which ones would be
> > correct?
>
> Neither, according to me, but each person must decide for himself.
So you are pleading incompetence, but knowingly incompetent so
dishonest is still up in the air. Sort of strange.
>
> >>> Even if you really did this, where would you put in on a scale of 1 to 10
> >>> (10 being the most reliable evidence) in terms of evidence you could trust?
>
> >> 10 for me and apparently, somehow, a zero for you. And it is why I will fight
> >> you to the end of my life.
>
> > You aren't fighting me, you are fighting a reality that you can't cope with.
> > This could be just blowing smoke to avoid answering the question, but how can
> > anyone tell?
>
> What reality would that be? There is no God?
The reality that there is not verifiable evidence that your designer
is doing anything in nature at this time. That there has been a 100%
failure rate for designer did it assertions, once science has been
able to test those assertions. Not a single success in the entire
history of science is what you have been obfuscating about.
You've practically admitted it, so why prevaricate? Do you have such
an example or not?
You still didn't put up what was requested did you? You claim to have
knowingly put up something that wasn't requested, so what gives?
>
> I also think that Sean may well have experience evidence of the same kind.
> And I think your criticism of him is off target. He seems to hold his own
> quit well and kicks butt on occasion, usually against daunting odds I must
> say.
Sean is in denial. Sean knows that he is being dishonest. Just ask
him why he doesn't produce the evidence that he claims to have had
over half a decade ago. Why are you in denial? Just one example or
admit that you don't have one. Why should that reality be so bad that
you have to obfuscate instead of admitting to it? When has your
designer been verified to have done anything in nature? I admit that
this doesn't mean that such a designer does not exist, but you have to
know that cramming such an entity into the unknown is stupid when such
assertions have a 100% failure rate upon testing. You need one
success to be in the game, or you have to get all your ducks in a row
and demonstrate something that has never been demonstrated before.
The ID scam artists were not able to do it. They even gave up on ID
before the scam went to court. You have to know this because they
gave the Ohio rubes the teach the controversy replacement scam back in
2002 instead of anything to teach about intelligent design. The teach
the controversy replacement scam turned out to not even mention that
ID had ever existed. So at least three years before Dover hit the fan
the ID scam artists knew that the game was up. They just didn't tell
rubes like you.
Ron Okimoto
>
> <snip>
>
> George Evans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -