Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
Ye Old One
1. They do not understand what it is.
2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
and understand what it is.
3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
bronze age storybook to think for them.
5. They do not understand what it is
6. They have no idea how it works.
7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
research.
8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
try and understand what it is.
9. They do not understand what it is.
10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
--
Bob.
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
Statement on Evolution. http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
hersheyh
This may be a 159 thing, but I sense a little triplication or here.
Is that so the entire trinity of Christian gods is covered? A little
editing would have helped, too. But a spell-checker wouldn't have
caught most of the mistakes.
Ye Old One
Hangs head in shame for being almost as illiterate and the average
creationist :(
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
John Stockwell
I would have to say that there is a failure to understand science, in
general, among
creationists. There is also the notion that Bible interpretations
trump anything else,
so they have to make up ad hoc explanations to cover the disparity
between scientific
results and the expectations made from Biblical exegesis.
-John
Ron O
Actually, it is more that they do not understand the limitations of
their own religious beliefs. If science did not exist they would
still be wrong. They just wouldn't have a clue as to why they were
wrong, so it wouldn't be any different than it is now.
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
news:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
> Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> and understand what it is.
>
> 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> research.
>
> 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> try and understand what it is.
>
> 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bob.
Ten reasons Darwinists refuse to accept creation.
1. They do not understand what it is.
2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd anti-religious beliefs to try
and understand what it is.
3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy Darwinist
propaganda sites, and quite likely, their public school.
4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
plastic age storybook to think for them.
5. They do not understand what it is
6. They have no idea how it works.
7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
research.
8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd anti-religious beliefs to
Kalkidas
Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
speculators masquerading as scientists.
chris thompson
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> > and understand what it is.
>
> > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> > � research.
>
> > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> > � try and understand what it is.
>
> > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
> > --
> > Bob.
>
> > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>
> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
Is this a joke? I mean, really, no one is this ignorant right? Have
you heard of the Green Revolution of the 1960's? Darwinian evolution
is what feeds the world today.
> medicine,
Fosmidomycin.
> conservation,
Whooping Cranes- to name one of many.
> forestry,
Oh gosh, I worked for the US Forest Service. This is just idiotic.
> pathology,
Really? Why does E. coli O157:H7 produce shigatoxin?
> or any other applied area
> of biology.
You've been reading too much Nashton. He's retarded and you're
catching it.
>- Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> speculators masquerading as scientists.
Yup. You're catching Nashton disease. You get progressively more
incoherent.
Chris
Burkhard
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> > and understand what it is.
>
> > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>
> > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>
> > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>
> > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
> > --
> > Bob.
>
> > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>
> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> medicine, conservation, forestry,
For numerous counter examples see
Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
conservation, in particular Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife
Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
�Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
further references
All-seeing-I
> �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> further references
>
> �pathology, or any other applied area
Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
An "inference" so-to-speak.
Eric Root
>
>
>
> > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> > and understand what it is.
>
> > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> > � research.
>
> > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> > � try and understand what it is.
>
> > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
> > --
> > Bob.
>
> > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>
> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> speculators masquerading as scientists.
Yeah, but nobody here is a Darwinist. It's just an imaginary bugaboo
made up by creationists.
Eric Root
Eric Root
And the interpretation of the scientists is a lot better than the
interpretation of the creationists, because scientists are actual
experts, while creationists are a species of crackpot.
> An "inference" so-to-speak.
Eric Root
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>>
>> > > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
>> > > and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
>> > > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
>> > > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>>
>> > > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>> > > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>>
>> > > 5. They do not understand what it is
>>
>> > > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>>
>> > > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>> > > � research.
>>
>> > > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>> > > � try and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Bob.
>>
>> > > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> > > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> > > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> > > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> > > Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>>
>> > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>> For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
>> �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> further references
>>
>> �pathology, or any other applied area
>
>
>Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>
>An "inference" so-to-speak.
Just a matter of blindingly willful ignorance.
"Stupidity" so to speak.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Ten reasons Darwinists refuse to accept creation.
What ia/are "darwinists?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> of biology.
No scientist has ever said or written that it has.
Desertphile
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 7:29�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> Is this a joke? I mean, really, no one is this ignorant right? Have
> you heard of the Green Revolution of the 1960's? Darwinian evolution
> is what feeds the world today.
He wrote "darwinism," not "evolutionary theory." "Darwinism" has
never contributed to humanity anything of benefit because it is
Creationism.
Stuart
Indeed, trying to explain away reality is a full time occupation for
them.
One wonders how they find the time to do anything else.
Stuart
VoiceOfReason
> Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
Rachael Maddow interviews Frank Shaeffer on America's Evangelical
subculture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_2Ed1bqq3M
Excerpts:
"We have a subculture which is literally a 5th column of insanity that
is bred from birth ... to reject facts."
"That evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States
of America."
"What we're really talking about is a group of people who are
resentful because they know they've been left behind -- by modernity,
by science, by education, by art, by literature. ... This is a
dangerous group of people to have as neighbors -- and they're our
neighbors."
"You don't work to move them off this position. You move past them.
Look, a village cannot re-organize village life to suit the village
idiot. It's a simple as that."
"It's become a joke, unfortunately a dangerous joke.... It's a serious
thing that we all have to face."
"Sane Americans just have to move past these people, say "Go wait on
the hilltop until the end -- the rest of us are going to get on with
rebuilding our country."
Burkhard
> On Dec 11, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:29 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>>>> Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>>>> 1. They do not understand what it is.
>>>> 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
>>>> and understand what it is.
>>>> 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
>>>> 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>>>> 5. They do not understand what it is
>>>> 6. They have no idea how it works.
>>>> 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>>>> 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>>>> 9. They do not understand what it is.
>>>> 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>>>> --
>>>> Bob.
>>>> Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>>>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>>>> of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>>>> biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>>>> which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>>>> Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>>> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>>> medicine, conservation, forestry,
>> For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> �Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> further references
>>
>
>
> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>
> An "inference" so-to-speak.
>
and working, as the articles show.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
2: See above
3: See above
etc.
bpuharic
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>Ten reasons Darwinists refuse to accept creation.
>
>1. They do not understand what it is.
no one understands what it is, including creationists
>
>2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd anti-religious beliefs to try
>and understand what it is.
and what of the christians who accept evolution? are they anti
religious?
>
>3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy Darwinist
> propaganda sites, and quite likely, their public school.
and what of the japanese, french, danish, etc. scientists? is there a
worldwide conspiracy? you a member of the tin foil hat crowd?
>
>4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> plastic age storybook to think for them.
says the believer in a taliban like view of religion who thinks we
need to go back 2000 years
>
>5. They do not understand what it is
>
>6. They have no idea how it works.
>
>7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> research.
ROFLMAO!!! THIS one is rich!! every single discussion here involved
'molecules', 'DNA', RNA, etc. all of these were discovered by science.
and creationism was wrong in every single case where it made an
analysis of nature.
why not tell us why indian scientists ...world class in their own
right...don't use your view of religion to explain nature?
oh. because your view is useful only for abusing 'untouchables' and
doesnt lead anywhere
>
>
bpuharic
>
>> Bob.
>>
>> Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> Statement on Evolution. http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>
>Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
evolution, however, has, through the development of better crops
>medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
>speculators masquerading as scientists.
etc etc...
and religion? still having us pray to gods to save us from
disease...all while creationists were drinking sewage contaminated
water and blaming disease on demons
how'd that work out for you guys?
>
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right.
And this is the /only/ way evolution can even be relevant. It has to
tell everyone "I am smarter you".
Well. here is a clue:
I have read more collective stupidity from the evolutionist side then
I have ever read from the creationist side @ t.o. So the excuse
"Because Scientists are Smarter then you" just don't wash.
Boikat
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> > and understand what it is.
>
> > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> > � research.
>
> > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> > � try and understand what it is.
>
> > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
> > --
> > Bob.
>
> > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>
> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> speculators masquerading as scientists
You have to either be a total idiot, or a troll, most likely both.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
Boikat
> In the "Playing Hide and Seek With Darwinism" Category:
>
>
>
That depends on the operative definition of "Darwinism". Some people
do not recognize "darwinism" as a legitimate scientific term.
Boikat
Eric Root
No more so than any other science. And of course people who study
things from all angles are going to know more about something.
>
> Well. here is a clue:
> I have read more collective stupidity from the evolutionist side then
> I have ever read from the creationist side @ t.o. So the excuse
> "Because Scientists are Smarter then you" just don't wash.
That's because your "special perception" makes you see everything the
opposite of what it really is. You say 200 stupid things for every
one thing you get right. With the worst of us, it is about half-and-
half.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> Eric Root wrote:
> > Yeah, but nobody here is a Darwinist. �It's just an imaginary bugaboo
> > made up by creationists.
>
>
> I don't like the reality based side rejecting the "Darwinist" label. We
> should embrace it rather, claim it back. Darwin was an admirable fellow
> whose influence can't be measured. The essence of his theory still
> stands. There should be nothing wrong with being a Darwinist Darwinian.
It wrongly makes us sound like adherents of a man, or a philosophy.
John Wilkins
<515ea481-f172-4d52...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
I agree. "Darwinism" is a bad term even within science, used routinely
to identify those who are the Bad Establishment or the Radical Young
Turks, depending on who's talking.
"Darwinian" has an agreed meaning: it basically refers to natural
selection. But "Darwinism" is just a mess.
Ye Old One
>On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>>
>> > > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
>> > > and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
>> > > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
>> > > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>>
>> > > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>> > > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>>
>> > > 5. They do not understand what it is
>>
>> > > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>>
>> > > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>> > > � research.
>>
>> > > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>> > > � try and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Bob.
>>
>> > > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> > > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> > > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> > > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> > > Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>>
>> > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>> For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
>> �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> further references
>>
>> �pathology, or any other applied area
>
>
>Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>
>An "inference" so-to-speak.
And still the illiterate cretin doesn't know what inference means.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 11, 9:09�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > > > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>>
>> > > > > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > > > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
>> > > > > and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > > > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
>> > > > > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
>> > > > > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>>
>> > > > > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>> > > > > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>>
>> > > > > 5. They do not understand what it is
>>
>> > > > > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>>
>> > > > > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>> > > > > � research.
>>
>> > > > > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>> > > > > � try and understand what it is.
>>
>> > > > > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> > > > > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>>
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Bob.
>>
>> > > > > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > > > > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> > > > > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> > > > > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> > > > > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> > > > > Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>>
>> > > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>> > > For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> > > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> > > �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
>> > > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> > > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> > > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> > > further references
>>
>> > > �pathology, or any other applied area
>>
>> > Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> And the interpretation of the scientists is a lot better than the
>> interpretation of the creationists, because scientists are actual
>> experts, while creationists are a species of crackpot.
>>
>> > An "inference" so-to-speak.
>>
>> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Right.
>
>And this is the /only/ way evolution can even be relevant. It has to
>tell everyone "I am smarter you".
>
>Well. here is a clue:
>I have read more collective stupidity from the evolutionist side then
>I have ever read from the creationist side @ t.o. So the excuse
>"Because Scientists are Smarter then you" just don't wash.
If you were smarter you would se that it does wash.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.]
Mike Lyle
Very interesting, nevertheless. If there were no creationism, there
would be no need for a word for evidence-based thought on the origin of
living species. But once forced into that corner, we find that there
isn't a good word available: "evolutionism" doesn't seem to me much
better than "Darwinism".
--
Mike.
hersheyh
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
> > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>
> > For numerous counter examples see
>
> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> > �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> > further references
>
> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>
> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>
> An "inference" so-to-speak.
Inference from material evidence or experimentation is a rather
important feature of the natural sciences. *All* of the natural
sciences. Not just evolution.
OTOH, inference from personal delusion or wishes or feelings or
inference from textual distortion or the claims by accepting the
authority of those people or sources who argue from personal delusion
in the absence of evidence seems to be the operative methodology of
creationism. E.g. Creationists *infer* that God created by a magical
poofing supernatural mechanism by inferring that the English
translation is the literal "Word of God". There is no evidence, of
course, that it really is. And even if the original were, what we
have is a translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral
history. And if we know anything about language, we know it isn't
static.
Ray Martinez
Classic use of the "misunderstanding card."
If you understood evolutionary theory you would reject it too.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In article
> <515ea481-f172-4d52-b84a-ae9326190...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 6:05�am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> > > Eric Root wrote:
> > > > Yeah, but nobody here is a Darwinist. �It's just an imaginary bugaboo
> > > > made up by creationists.
>
> > > Not in English English.
>
> > > I don't like the reality based side rejecting the "Darwinist" label. We
> > > should embrace it rather, claim it back. Darwin was an admirable fellow
> > > whose influence can't be measured. The essence of his theory still
> > > stands. There should be nothing wrong with being a Darwinist Darwinian.
>
> > It wrongly makes us sound like adherents of a man, or a philosophy.
>
> I agree. "Darwinism" is a bad term even within science, used routinely
> to identify those who are the Bad Establishment or the Radical Young
> Turks, depending on who's talking.
>
Dawkins, Gould, Ruse, Dennett and every other prominent evolutionist
since circa 1930 use BOTH terms liberally in ALL of their published
books.
Ray
SNIP....
TomS
<13623d03-228d-4877...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
stated..."
>
>On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>> > For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> > further references
>>
>> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>>
>> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> An "inference" so-to-speak.
>
>Inference from material evidence or experimentation is a rather
>important feature of the natural sciences. *All* of the natural
>sciences. Not just evolution.
>
>OTOH, inference from personal delusion or wishes or feelings or
>inference from textual distortion or the claims by accepting the
>authority of those people or sources who argue from personal delusion
>in the absence of evidence seems to be the operative methodology of
>creationism. E.g. Creationists *infer* that God created by a magical
>poofing supernatural mechanism by inferring that the English
>translation is the literal "Word of God". There is no evidence, of
>course, that it really is. And even if the original were, what we
>have is a translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral
>history. And if we know anything about language, we know it isn't
>static.
>
>
Creationists are not led by what the Bible says, rather they impose
on the text what they wish to be true.
It is quite obvious that Genesis has nothing to say about the
fixity of species (or "kinds"). That would be an anachronism, by
some 2000 years. (The book of Genesis probably dating from no later
than 400 BC, and the concept of "fixity of species" probably dating
from no earlier than AD 1600.) The authors of Genesis, if they
wanted to tell us that, did a very poor job of communicating it.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Ye Old One
But I do understand evolutionary theory and I most certainly do NOT
reject it.
I see it for what it is - an amazing scientific theory that provided
the cornerstone, the footing and the cement that holds all of the life
sciences together. The ToE was published 150 year ago this year. In
that time there have been many who have tried to find a hole in it but
nobody has been able to. Sure, as new evidence has been found some of
the minor details of the ToE have changed. However, the core theory,
that life has evolved over time as a result of natural selection of
favoured traits stands supreme.
Just think Dishonest Ray, 150 years and still getting stronger by the
day. The same certainly cannot be said for creationism.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Devils Advocaat
And if you were so sure of your notion of "creation ex materia (from a
clay-like ground" as how new species emerge in the world, you would be
able to explain how a material that is a mostly hydrated aluminium
silicate can be transformed into a living organism that is mostly
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, and you should be able to
present evidence for such a phenomenon.
Ray Martinez
You do not understand evolutionary theory. If you did you would reject
it.
Ray
All-seeing-I
> "On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:44:51 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> >> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>
> >> > For numerous counter examples see
>
> >> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> >> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> >> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> >> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> >> > further references
>
> >> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>
> >> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>
> >> An "inference" so-to-speak.
>
> >Inference from material evidence or experimentation is a rather
> >sciences. �Not just evolution.
>
> >OTOH, inference from personal delusion or wishes or feelings or
> >inference from textual distortion or the claims by accepting the
> >authority of those people or sources who argue from personal delusion
> >in the absence of evidence seems to be the operative methodology of
> >poofing supernatural mechanism by inferring that the English
> >course, that it really is. �And even if the original were, what we
> >have is a translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral
> >static.
>
> Creationists are not led by what the Bible says, rather they impose
> on the text what they wish to be true.
>
> It is quite obvious that Genesis has nothing to say about the
> fixity of species (or "kinds"). That would be an anachronism, by
> some 2000 years. (The book of Genesis probably dating from no later
> than 400 BC, and the concept of "fixity of species" probably dating
> from no earlier than AD 1600.) The authors of Genesis, if they
> wanted to tell us that, did a very poor job of communicating it.
First, genesis is much older. The Genesis variation is obviously
influenced from the already 4,000 or more year old Sumerian creation
story. Rightfully so. The Hebrew Abraham was from Ur. So it is
understandable that Moses, being a Hebrew, would know the traditions
from Ur.
Next. The bible does address "fixity of species". Species are not
completely fixed.
The phrase "Each after his own kind" allows for variation "After" his
own kind. Such as, ---the original Canis --to variations of the
original (fox,wolf,etc.) --to the wolf --to dogs---to any future
variations of wolf and dog, etc.
While this does allow for variation within the same "kind" of life, it
does not allow for the complete over haul of one species into
something so different from the original that it becomes nothing like
that original.
Which is what would have to take place for a complete speciation
divergence to take place. Everything that I have seen so far says
variation happens and it happens all of the time.
But there is nothing suggesting a change of the gnome to the point of
producing millions upon millions of new species from a SCA happens. In
fact, that even reads like a fantasy science fiction movie it is so
far fetched.
Ye Old One
Yes I do.
>If you did you would reject
>it.
Why would I reject such good science?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
bpuharic
>
>
>
>Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
>speculators masquerading as scientists.
>
really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
generally think that loving god means hating people..so this is the
consequence of creationism
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>The phrase "Each after his own kind" allows for variation "After" his
>own kind. Such as, ---the original Canis --to variations of the
>original (fox,wolf,etc.) --to the wolf --to dogs---to any future
>variations of wolf and dog, etc.
>
>While this does allow for variation within the same "kind" of life, it
>does not allow for the complete over haul of one species into
>something so different from the original that it becomes nothing like
>that original.
>
>Which is what would have to take place for a complete speciation
>divergence to take place. Everything that I have seen so far says
>variation happens and it happens all of the time.
>
>But there is nothing suggesting a change of the gnome to the point of
>producing millions upon millions of new species from a SCA happens. In
>fact, that even reads like a fantasy science fiction movie it is so
>far fetched.
the bible's not a science book. it's not a history book. creationists
used to think the sun revolved around the earth. they were wrong
the fatal problem of creationism is that it has no way to tell when
it's wrong. science does.
2000 years of always being wrong. and creationists couldnt even TELL
when they were wrong
Frank J
> Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> and understand what it is.
>
> 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> � �logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> � �propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> � �bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> � �research.
>
> 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> � �try and understand what it is.
>
> 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
11. They understand it better than most nonscientists who accept it,
but are nevertheless convinced that the "masses" must doubt it in
order to behave properly:
http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
hersheyh
How can I understand evolutionary theory as you do, given your failure
(as yet) to publish your 'brilliant' expose of the massive scientific/
atheist/Masonic/Jewish/Communist/Nazi/et.al. conspiracy against
biology and True[TM] Creationist Science. I recommend that you
examine the 'brilliant' creationist thesis by Kent Hovind to see that
it is possible.
Frank J
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
> > and understand what it is.
>
> > 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> > � logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
> > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> > � bronze age storybook to think for them.
>
> > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
> > 6. They have no idea how it works.
>
> > 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> > � research.
>
> > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> > � try and understand what it is.
>
> > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>
> > --
> > Bob.
>
>
Well here's your chance to make at least one of us "Darwinists"
understand it.
Tell us what was created when. Start with the first life on earth. How
many years ago was that?
Tell us how many years ago, according to "creation" the Cambrian
"explosion" occurred and how many years it lasted.
Tell us whether our species was created in-vivo from common ancestors
with other species, or whether it was created independently from
nonliving matter. And How many years ago did that occur?
I have many more questions, but that should keep you busy for now.
(snip)
hersheyh
> understandable that Moses, being a Hebrew, would know the traditions
> from Ur.
>
> Next. The bible does address "fixity of species". Species are not
> completely fixed.
>
> The phrase "Each after his own kind" allows for variation "After" his
> own kind. Such as, ---the original Canis --to variations of the
> original (fox,wolf,etc.) --to the wolf --to dogs---to any future
> variations of wolf and dog, etc.
"Kind" is operationally defined as...? How do I know that two
organisms are the same or different "kinds"? BTW, foxes are not in
the genus Canis. Only wolves (and dogs) are, although there are
extinct wolves in the group. So, is Homo sapiens in the same "kind"
as H. erectus and H. habilis?
> While this does allow for variation within the same "kind" of life, it
> does not allow for the complete over haul of one species into
> something so different from the original that it becomes nothing like
> that original.
How do I identify "the" original 'kind' for each 'kind'? What, aside
from a lack of sufficient time for the amount of genetic change, would
prevent one species from becoming another species?
> Which is what would have to take place for a complete speciation
> divergence to take place.
You seem to be defining *species* as meaning the same thing as
*kind*. But "kind" seems to include a number of different species (as
defined by biology). You seem to put the "kind" barrier at some level
of organization that is pretty vague (is it similar to genus, family,
order, class, or phylum?. Your "kind" is NOT the definition of
species that has been used in biology since even before Darwin. But
you haven't told us how one identifies either the "original" or the
"kind". Those terms seem to be nothing but empty and flexibly vague
verbiage.
> Everything that I have seen so far says
> variation happens and it happens all of the time.
>
> But there is nothing suggesting a change of the gnome to the point of
> producing millions upon millions of new species from a SCA happens. In
> fact, that even reads like a fantasy science fiction movie it is so
> far fetched.
Time. Oodles and oodles of time, along with changing environments.
Ye Old One
>On Dec 12, 1:42�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:44:51 -0800 (PST), in article
>> <13623d03-228d-4877-8201-497a0f93b...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>>
>> >> > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> >> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>> >> > For numerous counter examples see
>>
>> >> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> >> > �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
>> >> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> >> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> >> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> >> > further references
>>
>> >> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>>
>> >> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> >> An "inference" so-to-speak.
>>
>> >Inference from material evidence or experimentation is a rather
>> >important feature of the natural sciences. �*All* of the natural
>> >sciences. �Not just evolution.
>>
>> >OTOH, inference from personal delusion or wishes or feelings or
>> >inference from textual distortion or the claims by accepting the
>> >authority of those people or sources who argue from personal delusion
>> >in the absence of evidence seems to be the operative methodology of
>> >creationism. �E.g. Creationists *infer* that God created by a magical
>> >poofing supernatural mechanism by inferring that the English
>> >translation is the literal "Word of God". �There is no evidence, of
>> >course, that it really is. �And even if the original were, what we
>> >have is a translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral
>> >history. �And if we know anything about language, we know it isn't
>> >static.
>>
>> Creationists are not led by what the Bible says, rather they impose
>> on the text what they wish to be true.
>>
>> It is quite obvious that Genesis has nothing to say about the
>> fixity of species (or "kinds"). That would be an anachronism, by
>> some 2000 years. (The book of Genesis probably dating from no later
>> than 400 BC, and the concept of "fixity of species" probably dating
>> from no earlier than AD 1600.) The authors of Genesis, if they
>> wanted to tell us that, did a very poor job of communicating it.
>
>First, genesis is much older.
Oh? How old?
>The Genesis variation is obviously
>influenced from the already 4,000 or more year old Sumerian creation
>story. Rightfully so. The Hebrew Abraham was from Ur. So it is
>understandable that Moses, being a Hebrew, would know the traditions
>from Ur.
>
>Next. The bible does address "fixity of species". Species are not
>completely fixed.
>
>The phrase "Each after his own kind" allows for variation "After" his
>own kind. Such as, ---the original Canis --to variations of the
>original (fox,wolf,etc.) --to the wolf --to dogs---to any future
>variations of wolf and dog, etc.
>
>While this does allow for variation within the same "kind" of life, it
>does not allow for the complete over haul of one species into
>something so different from the original that it becomes nothing like
>that original.
>
>Which is what would have to take place for a complete speciation
>divergence to take place. Everything that I have seen so far says
>variation happens and it happens all of the time.
>
>But there is nothing suggesting a change of the gnome to the point of
>producing millions upon millions of new species from a SCA happens. In
>fact, that even reads like a fantasy science fiction movie it is so
>far fetched.
You really are nuts.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
All-Seeing-I
He called Darwinism = Creationism, you dimwit
Mike Lyle
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied
>> area of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist
>> mental speculators masquerading as scientists.
>>
>
> really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
> antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
Selective breeding by humans -that is, artificial selection -is
precisely what Darwin said natural selection was not. Kalkidas remains
wrong, of course, though not on that precise point.
[...]
--
Mike.
All-Seeing-I
God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
heekster
>Eric Root wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but nobody here is a Darwinist. It's just an imaginary bugaboo
>> made up by creationists.
>
>Not in English English.
>
>I don't like the reality based side rejecting the "Darwinist" label. We
>should embrace it rather, claim it back. Darwin was an admirable fellow
>whose influence can't be measured. The essence of his theory still
>stands. There should be nothing wrong with being a Darwinist Darwinian.
>
I agree, but the problem is with the room temperature IQ, ignorance
worshipping cretinists. They think that if they can make Darwinism
sound like it is a religion, even though it isn't, then they can argue
at their admittedly lower intellectual level against it.
The "religion" of the cretinists is based on fear and hate, much in
the same way that the teachings of Jesus were based on love of one
another. If you are looking for the true anti-Christ, look to the
creationism. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit.
Boikat
Your reading comprehension problem rears it's pea-brained head again.
It's possible that he objects to the "-ism" thing, Mr. Cambrian mammal
= trilobite-shit-for-brains.
Boikat
bpuharic
?? can you read? really? where did i say GOD hated people?
i said YOU hate people because you're a creationist, and you think
THIS means you love god...
jesus fucking christ you're stupid.
Free Lunch
So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
John Wilkins
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"Science" is sufficient. As science changes its hypotheses in the light
of evidence, we see that the only real ideological commitment here is
data and a good explanation.
David Fritzinger
<a6ccb475-ebe6-47f5...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 9:09�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > > > > > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied
> > > > > > area
> > > > > > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > > > > > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > > > > > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
> > > > > > Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
> >
> > > > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > > > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
> >
> > > > For numerous counter examples see
> >
> > > > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> > > > �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
> > > > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> > > > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> > > > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> > > > further references
> >
> > > > �pathology, or any other applied area
> >
> > > Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
> >
> > And the interpretation of the scientists is a lot better than the
> > interpretation of the creationists, because scientists are actual
> > experts, while creationists are a species of crackpot.
> >
> > > An "inference" so-to-speak.
> >
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Right.
>
> And this is the /only/ way evolution can even be relevant. It has to
> tell everyone "I am smarter you".
>
> Well. here is a clue:
> I have read more collective stupidity from the evolutionist side then
> I have ever read from the creationist side @ t.o. So the excuse
> "Because Scientists are Smarter then you" just don't wash.
You are lying again, mudbrain.
David Fritzinger
<d07891c0-a11b-48a5...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:50�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 9:09�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > > And the interpretation of the scientists is a lot better than the
> > > interpretation of the creationists, because scientists are actual
> > > experts, while creationists are a species of crackpot.
> >
> > > > An "inference" so-to-speak.
> >
> > > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > And this is the /only/ way evolution can even be relevant. It has to
> > tell everyone "I am smarter you".
>
> No more so than any other science. And of course people who study
> things from all angles are going to know more about something.
>
> >
> > Well. here is a clue:
> > I have read more collective stupidity from the evolutionist side then
> > I have ever read from the creationist side @ t.o. So the excuse
> > "Because Scientists are Smarter then you" just don't wash.
>
> That's because your "special perception" makes you see everything the
> opposite of what it really is. You say 200 stupid things for every
> one thing you get right. With the worst of us, it is about half-and-
> half.
Eric, you are being exceedingly generous here...
8^)
Burkhard
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
Nah, they are true. He just doesn't kill out of hatred, but because he
thinks it's funny
heekster
How the hell would a mouth breather like you know that?
heekster
>On Dec 11, 12:37�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>>
>> 1. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> 2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd religious beliefs to try
>> and understand what it is.
>>
>> 3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
>> � �logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy creationist
>> � �propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>>
>> 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>> � �bronze age storybook to think for them.
>>
>> 5. They do not understand what it is
>>
>> 6. They have no idea how it works.
>>
>> 7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
>> � �research.
>>
>> 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
>> � �try and understand what it is.
>>
>> 9. They do not understand what it is.
>>
>> 10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>
>Classic use of the "misunderstanding card."
>
No such card, liar.
>If you understood evolutionary theory you would reject it too.
>
I understand it, and it seems that you just prevaricated a second
time.
Where's the book, big mouth?
Ye Old One
God is a fictional character you pathetic dimwit.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Kalkidas
news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings, as when you
kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
property.
God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are His
property.
You are the murderer, sir.
bpuharic
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>> So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>
>Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings, as when you
>kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
>property.
>
>God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are His
>property.
>
>You are the murderer, sir.
so there is no absolute right and wrong...it's right if god does it?
that'll come as news to creationsits who insist there's an absolute
moral law...
seems the religous fanatics can't even get their theology straight,
let alone their science
as to morals, YOUR religion teaches that certain people are
'untouchable'...so i wouldnt push the moral aspect too much
>
Boikat
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >>On Dec 12, 2:26 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>> >Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> >>> >medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> >>> >of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> >>> >speculators masquerading as scientists.
>
> >>> really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
> >>> antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
>
> >>> well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
> >>> generally think that loving god means hating people..so this is the
> >>> consequence of creationism
>
> >>God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
>
> > So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>
> Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings, as when you
> kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
> property.
So, those new-born babies killed in the flood were not inocent. What
were they guilty of? being born and not having a chance to do
anything evil, like pull wings off of flies?
>
> God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are His
> property.
So, you consider yourself "property". That makes you a slave, does it
not?
>
> You are the murderer, sir.
All things being equal, doesn't that make you a murder also?
Boikat
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
No, you have just told us that God is without moral restraint.
You worship an evil god.
John Wilkins
Kalkidas
The testimony of a murderer is worthless. Stop murdering innocent living
beings who have done you no harm and who do not belong to you, then get back
to us.
bpuharic
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:qie8i5pcu9motlhbe...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:25:49 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
>> talk.origins
>>>>
>>>> So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>>>
>>>Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings, as when you
>>>kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
>>>property.
>>>
>>>God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are
>>>His
>>>property.
>>>
>>>You are the murderer, sir.
>>
>> No, you have just told us that God is without moral restraint.
>>
>> You worship an evil god.
>
>The testimony of a murderer is worthless. Stop murdering innocent living
>beings who have done you no harm and who do not belong to you, then get back
>to us.
>
which religion has not done this? which god hasn't killed the
innocent?
Boikat
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:qie8i5pcu9motlhbe...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:25:49 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
> > talk.origins:
>
> >>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
Who has he murdered?
> and who do not belong to you, then get back
> to us.
"Us"? Are you aflicted with Multiple Personality Disorder or do you
have a mouse in your shirt pocket?
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
>
> news:qie8i5pcu9motlhbe...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:25:49 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
> > talk.origins:
>
> >>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
These freaks of nature actually believe that mankind's knowledge
started at the inception point of their baby-step science. They are
the murderers. Everything science has devised has the potential for
mass murder when placed in the wrong hands.
Yeah. God has killed. For good reason. Everything in nature kills too
--for a good reason.
But their science has allowed mass killing for no reason. No reason
worth while and, sometimes even for the fun of it. Political agendas
and profits are their hallmark for murder.
It is a pity God did not get all of their ancestors in the flood. If
he had, we would not have to tolerate these lying weeds today.
Boikat
Bullshit.
>
> Yeah. God has killed. For good reason. Everything in nature kills too
> --for a good reason.
How about man killing in slef defence? How about man killing because
"God-Thing" told him to?
>
> But their science has allowed mass killing for no reason. No reason
> worth while and, sometimes even for the fun of it. Political agendas
> and profits are their hallmark for murder.
Again, you are blameing science for mans actions, yet you do not blame
your "God-Thing" when man misuses the God-Thing's "holy" word to
justify mass killing. You're a hypocrite.
>
> It is a pity God did not get all of their ancestors in the flood. If
> he had, we would not have to tolerate these lying weeds today.
Idiotic statement, since there was no flood, and arrogant, since you
assume that *you* would be here. But then again, your statement also
shows just how spiteful and evil you actually are. You wish
*billions* of people had never been born, just so you wouldn't have to
use your defective little brain, and could sit, drool and shit on
yourself.
You are an odious ignorant and self absorbed little troll. It must be
due to thoe defective "created" genes you claim to have.
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> The testimony of a murderer is worthless. Stop murdering innocent living
>> beings who have done you no harm and who do not belong to you, then get back
>> to us.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>These freaks of nature actually believe that mankind's knowledge
>started at the inception point of their baby-step science
while he sneers at science, it's explained more about the universe in
300 years than creationism did in 2000.
so what does that say about his 'grown up' creationism?
.. They are
>the murderers. Everything science has devised has the potential for
>mass murder when placed in the wrong hands.
ever hear of the cathars? 12,000 men women and children murdered by
christians for being 'heretics'
christians were committing mass murder long before science
>
>Yeah. God has killed. For good reason. Everything in nature kills too
>--for a good reason.
so murder is fine? what happened to the 10 commandments?
ANOTHER conradiction in creationism!
>
>But their science has allowed mass killing for no reason
tell it to the cathars.
.. No reason
>worth while and, sometimes even for the fun of it. Political agendas
>and profits are their hallmark for murder.
>
>It is a pity God did not get all of their ancestors in the flood. If
>he had, we would not have to tolerate these lying weeds today.
seems teh creationist hates science because it killed his god
>
heekster
You are one seriously disturbed, sick little monkey.
raven1
>
>Ten reasons Darwinists refuse to accept creation.
>
>1. They do not understand what it is.
I understand perfectly what it is: it's an appeal to magic, and like
all other appeals to magic, it tells us nothing. Science is an
enterprise that tries to find out how the world around us works.
Creationism is the antithesis of science; it's the shrugging of one's
shoulders, and the admission "I don't understand this, therefore,
Goddidit". It's useless on every level.
>2. They are too brainwashed by there absurd anti-religious beliefs to try
>and understand what it is.
I'm not a big fan of fundamentalists of any religion, and their
anti-intellectual approach to life, but I have nothing in particular
against religion per se.
>3. Their only education on the subject is made up of straw-men,
> logical fallacies and nonsense fed to them by crappy Darwinist
> propaganda sites, and quite likely, their public school.
I went to public school at the Elementary and Junior High level, and
don't recall hearing evolution mentioned. The idea was first brought
to my attention in a serious way in freshman year Biology class in a
Catholic High School, where it was presented as an observed fact of
nature.
>4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
> plastic age storybook to think for them.
What is this supposed to mean?
>
>5. They do not understand what it is
Yes, I do. See #1.
>6. They have no idea how it works.
You don't either. "Goddidit" is not a methodology.
>7. They prefer to quote mine, rather than actually do genuine
> research.
You can't be serious. The whole ID movement came to a crashing halt at
the Dover trial when its proponents had to admit under oath that NO
research had ever been done on the topic. What are they waiting for?
>8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd anti-religious beliefs to
> try and understand what it is.
Wrong before and wrong again. See #2
>9. They do not understand what it is.
Wrong before and wrong again. See #1.
>10. They will never understand what it is, or how it works.
Please refer back to #6, and the old adage involving glass houses and
stones.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> First, genesis is much older.
It was written around the year -610, during the Babylonian
captivity.
> Rightfully so. The Hebrew Abraham was from Ur.
Abraham never existed; he was made up, along with seven other fake
"patriarchs," as a just-so story to "explain" the origins of the
eight kingdoms. The reality is that everyone in the area was a
Canaanite, descended from Canaanites, and that fact was lost to
the Judahites and Israelites long before the Bible myths were
written: the writers (during the time just preceeding Hezekiah, to
just after Josiah) did not know everyone was descended from
Canaanites. That is why the Bible has the odd, and very wrong,
stories about imaginary battles against Canaanites that never
happened.
> So it is understandable that Moses, being a Hebrew, would know
> the traditions from Ur.
Moses never existed.
> Next. The bible does address "fixity of species".
Idiot.
> Species are not completely fixed.
A few extant ones are much more "fixed" than most.
(Insane lunatic bullshit deleted)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> >medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> >of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> >speculators masquerading as scientists.
> really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
> antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
He wrote "darwinism." He is 100% correct: darwinism has never
benefitted humanity.
> well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
> generally think that loving god means hating people..so this is the
> consequence of creationism
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Classic use of the "misunderstanding card."
>
>If you understood evolutionary theory you would reject it too.
The world is still waiting for your paper where you show that you
understand the ToE, or can present reasons why it should be rejected.
How is that abstract coming along?
Desertphile
> On Dec 12, 2:26�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> > >Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > >medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > >of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> > >speculators masquerading as scientists.
> >
> > really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
> > antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
> >
> > well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
> > generally think that loving god means �hating people..so this is the
> > consequence of creationism
> God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
Gods don't hate anyone or any thing: they appear to be imaginary.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please be the first on
this planet to present that evidence. Thank you in advance.
Desertphile
The voices told him so.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
The doctrine of original sin claims that there intent is irrelevent.
As I understand it, they are claiming that God screwed up completely and
could not face himself after mucking things things up in Eden, so he
first had to blame the victims, Adam and Eve and then, eventually wash
away every trace of His errors in the Flood.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Why?
Of course your accusation is an accusation that you cannot back up with
any evidence, but that doesn't bother me. You have demonstrated your
commitment to immorality.
>Stop murdering innocent living
>beings who have done you no harm and who do not belong to you, then get back
>to us.
So why would you worship a supposed god who treats humanity the way
humans treat flies?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I ate some broccoli or some such. He appears to be saying that humans
are as useless to God as flies and mosquitos are to us.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Thanks.
After reading it, I have to come to the same conclusion that others have
made -- if God is not good, God is not worthy and we can know enough to
judge whether God is good.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 12, 11:45 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
snip
>>
>>> If you understood evolutionary theory you would reject it too.
>>
>> But I do understand evolutionary theory and I most certainly do NOT
>> reject it.
>>
>
> You do not understand evolutionary theory. If you did you would reject
> it.
Why do you imagine that, Ray? Evolutionary theory is simply the
explanation for the fact of evolution. It's quite simple to understand,
and doesn't require any magical, or supernatural influence.
Since you've shown quite clearly you don't understand evolution, you
obviously have no cause to dispute it.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied
>> area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
>> biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
>> which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
>> Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>
> Classic use of the "misunderstanding card."
When one does not understand something, how else do you describe it?
>
> If you understood evolutionary theory you would reject it too.
On the contrary, Ray. People who understand evolution accept it. You
reject it because you refuse to understand the concept.
DJT
RAM
> On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:qra5i5hvq1u9qc045...@4ax.com...
>
> > > > Ten reasons creationist refuse to accept evolution.
>
> > > > 1. They do not understand what it is.
>
> > > > and understand what it is.
>
> > > > � propaganda sites, and quite likely, their church.
>
> > > > 4. They lack the ability to think for yourself, and instead require a
>
> > > > 5. They do not understand what it is
>
>
>
> > > > 8. They are far too brainwashed by their absurd religious beliefs to
> > > > � try and understand what it is.
>
> > > > 9. They do not understand what it is.
>
>
> > > > Bob.
>
> > > > Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> > > > medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> > > > of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
> > > > biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
> > > > which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
> > > > Statement on Evolution.http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
>
> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>
> > For numerous counter examples see
>
> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> > �conservation, in particular Chapter 12, �Exploitative Wildlife
> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> > further references
>
> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>
> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
No scientific interpretation of evidence is highly specified by many
methodologies and strategies whereas creationist methodologies employ
subjective unspecified religious biases as the basis for
interpretation. One can lead to further insights the other to
nihilism.
>
> An "inference" so-to-speak.
No not even so-to-speak. Objective and subjective are polar
opposites.
hersheyh
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:od88i5p5n6berebrm...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >>On Dec 12, 2:26 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>> >Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
> >>> >medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
> >>> >of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
> >>> >speculators masquerading as scientists.
>
> >>> really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
> >>> antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
>
> >>> well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
> >>> generally think that loving god means hating people..so this is the
> >>> consequence of creationism
>
> >>God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
>
> > So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>
> Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings,
Clearly newborn or even pre-born babies must have drowned in God's
Flood (assuming you think such an event happened; I don't). Wouldn't
such 'living beings' be considered 'innocent' of sin? That would
leave only your claim that God is 'authorized' (presumably by God) to
kill whoever He wants, right?
> as when you
> kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
> property.
Didn't your God, at least the OT one, authorize animal sacrifice? But
why is stealing a chicken (for food purposes) murder, whereas the
authorized ritual slaughter of same chicken not murder?
> God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are His
> property.
Wouldn't that also justify a slave-owner who murders a slave just for
the fun of it? After all, Christian slave-owners always justified
slavery (and the equivalent status of peonage) as being God's will as
written in the Bible. And weren't lynchings effectively authorized
killings with innocence or guilt not being particularly of any
concern?
> You are the murderer, sir.
In what way? You are the one justifying the slaughter of innocents
because of property rights and the mere self-granting of the authority
do so. Amounts to the claim that whatever God does is good and
whatever humans do in the name of God is good. Genocide. Rape.
Incest. Interesting moral relativism.
David Fritzinger
<0f90ce69-6c94-4ba0...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
[snip]
> It is a pity God did not get all of their ancestors in the flood. If
> he had, we would not have to tolerate these lying weeds today.
Hey stupid (Yeah, that would be you, mudbrain). According to your myth,
if God had killed all their ancestors, no one would be alive today.
Remember, according to your myth, only Noah and his sons (and their
wives, of course) survived ye olde floode. Therefore, your mythical Noah
is everybody's ancestor.
Sheesh, you don't even understand your own myths.
Michael Siemon
<5fbd2c31-8c8f-4fa0...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> > > So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
> >
> > Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings,
>
> Clearly newborn or even pre-born babies must have drowned in God's
> Flood (assuming you think such an event happened; I don't). Wouldn't
> such 'living beings' be considered 'innocent' of sin? That would
> leave only your claim that God is 'authorized' (presumably by God) to
> kill whoever He wants, right?
There is a long (sad) history, under the rubric of "original sin" in
connection with stuff like this. In effect, because Adam and Eve (and
mostly especially the woman, Eve...) blundered in ignorance in the
"attractive nuisance" of Eden, every human since then is guilty from
birth of mortal sin. Practically everything ever written on this topic
is morally disgusting.[*]
There is a (very slightly) less disgusting history on the thread of
"God made us, therefore He can do any God-damned thing he wants to us,
and we have no right to complain about any of it, however nasty."
As a poetic trope, at home in something like a Greek tragedy, this
can be powerful; as a means of acceptance of ineluctable fate, it may
even give some solace. But...
What is especially bizarre about this is that almost any normal human
being (maybe excepting fundie evangelicals, to whatever extent they
can be counted as normal human beings...) when presented with a HUMAN
instance of such callous disregard of others, especially of dependents,
would object on moral (even on "religious" :-)) grounds to any such
behavior (Randian capitalists of course excepted, but then again, I
_did_ specify "normal human being" :-)).
The myth of the Fall, and its shadow on all later mankind, has some
sort of resonance -- not really as justification for anything, or as
a grounding of legal or doctrinal positions, but just as a reflection
of our conflicted natures as human beings. Social beings, at least
those with conscious reflection on their social interactions, are
_going_ to have the kinds of conflicts the myth points to. That, to
me, is what "original sin" is all about. And religions may purport
to give "answers" (or at least palliatives) to this problem. On that,
YMMV :-)
[*] in the t.o. context, it is worth noting that (IMO) the single most
important driver of "Creationist" rejection of biology is the attempt
to reify the Eden/Original Sin myth -- THAT is what evolution destroys
(as well as our infinite separation from our cousins, the other apes...)
The Creationists think that without Original Sin, the whole Jesus,
Incarnation, Resurrection psychodrama is meaningless, or at least does
not "work" to "save" them when they do their ape-like mimicry of their
co-religionists in having their (easily reproducible with standard social
mechanisms) "born-again" experiences. Fegh.
Ye Old One
Oh sure, though the reasons would not stand up in court.
>Everything in nature kills too
>--for a good reason.
>
>But their science has allowed mass killing for no reason. No reason
>worth while and, sometimes even for the fun of it. Political agendas
>and profits are their hallmark for murder.
You are a lying little trollslob.
>
>It is a pity God did not get all of their ancestors in the flood. If
>he had, we would not have to tolerate these lying weeds today.
Sure, if there had been a flood, but there wasn't.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 2:26�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > >medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>> > >of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
>> > >speculators masquerading as scientists.
>> >
>> > really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
>> > antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
>> >
>> > well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
>> > generally think that loving god means �hating people..so this is the
>> > consequence of creationism
>
>> God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
>
>Gods don't hate anyone or any thing: they appear to be imaginary.
>If you have any evidence to the contrary, please be the first on
>this planet to present that evidence. Thank you in advance.
Mudbrain does not do evidence.
It is one of his characteristics.
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Ye Old One
Most, but not quite all, of it did.
> They are
>the murderers. Everything science has devised has the potential for
>mass murder when placed in the wrong hands.
Everything christians have devised has the potential for murder when
placed in the wrong hands. That is because everything has the
potential for murder when placed in the wrong hands.
The real problem is "the wrong hands" and for thousands of years those
have been religious hands.
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
Burkhard
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:25:59 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2:26 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:29:02 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>>>>> medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
>>>>> of biology. - Actual track record of non-creating Darwinist mental
>>>>> speculators masquerading as scientists.
>>>> really? the selective breeding of plants, the development of
>>>> antibiotics, etc., are of no use?
>>>>
>>>> well, i suppose if you're a creationist that makes sense. you
>>>> generally think that loving god means hating people..so this is the
>>>> consequence of creationism
>>> God does not hate "people" you brain dead idiot
>> So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>
> Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings, as when you
> kill innocent animals who have not attacked you and who are not your
> property.
>
> God cannot commit murder, because He is the authority and all beings are His
> property.
>
> You are the murderer, sir.
>
>
think about cattle.
TomS
<801e3830-12b3-43f0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
stated..."
>
>On Dec 12, 3:16�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 1:42�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:44:51 -0800 (PST), in article
>>> <13623d03-228d-4877-8201-497a0f93b...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
>> > stated..."
>>
>> > >On Dec 11, 8:23�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Dec 11, 6:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On Dec 12, 12:29�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> > >[snip]
>>
>> > >> > > Darwinism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
>> > >> > > medicine, conservation, forestry,
>>
>>
>> > >> > Marco Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
>> > >> > �Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
>> > >> > �Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
>> > >> > ��Good Genes� versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
>> > >> > further references
>>
>> > >> > �pathology, or any other applied area
>>
>> > >> Just a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>>
>> > >Inference from material evidence or experimentation is a rather
>> > >important feature of the natural sciences. �*All* of the natural
>> > >sciences. �Not just evolution.
>>
>> > >OTOH, inference from personal delusion or wishes or feelings or
>> > >inference from textual distortion or the claims by accepting the
>> > >authority of those people or sources who argue from personal delusion
>> > >in the absence of evidence seems to be the operative methodology of
>> > >creationism. �E.g. Creationists *infer* that God created by a magical
>> > >poofing supernatural mechanism by inferring that the English
>> > >translation is the literal "Word of God". �There is no evidence, of
>> > >course, that it really is. �And even if the original were, what we
>> > >have is a translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral
>> > >history. �And if we know anything about language, we know it isn't
>> > >static.
>>
>> > Creationists are not led by what the Bible says, rather they impose
>> > on the text what they wish to be true.
>>
>> > It is quite obvious that Genesis has nothing to say about the
>> > fixity of species (or "kinds"). That would be an anachronism, by
>> > some 2000 years. (The book of Genesis probably dating from no later
>> > than 400 BC, and the concept of "fixity of species" probably dating
>> > from no earlier than AD 1600.) The authors of Genesis, if they
>> > wanted to tell us that, did a very poor job of communicating it.
>>
>> First, genesis is much older. The Genesis variation is obviously
>> influenced from the already 4,000 or more year old Sumerian creation
>> story. Rightfully so. The Hebrew �Abraham was from Ur. So it is
>> understandable that Moses, being a Hebrew, would know the traditions
>> from Ur.
First, you may note that I said (and I made effort to be very clear
and deliberate about this) "no later than 400 BC". Those who choose
to believe that Genesis was written by Moses agree that that was no
later than 400 BC. Those who believe that Genesis was written in the
court of Solomon, or about the time of the Babylonian exile, or by
Ezra would all agree with "no later than 400 BC".
>>
>> Next. The bible does address "fixity of species". Species are not
>> completely fixed.
>>
>> The phrase "Each after his own kind" allows for variation "After" his
>> own kind. Such as, ---the original Canis --to variations of the
>> original (fox,wolf,etc.) --to the wolf --to dogs---to any future
>> variations of wolf and dog, etc.
The phrase "each after his own kind" does not appear in the Bible. I
don't know why ASI continues saying this, when it has been made very
clear that it doesn't. He hasn't bothered to respond to this, once it
has been pointed out repeatedly. I don't expect an apology, or an
admission, but I would have expected at least that he would stop saying
it.
And he does ignore the point that I made, which is that for at least
2000 years, nobody thought that the Bible had anything to say about
"fixity of species (or of "kinds")".
>
>"Kind" is operationally defined as...? How do I know that two
>organisms are the same or different "kinds"? BTW, foxes are not in
>the genus Canis. Only wolves (and dogs) are, although there are
>extinct wolves in the group. So, is Homo sapiens in the same "kind"
>as H. erectus and H. habilis?
>
>> While this does allow for variation within the same "kind" of life, it
>> does not allow for the complete over haul of one species into
>> something so different from the original that it becomes nothing like
>> that original.
>
>How do I identify "the" original 'kind' for each 'kind'? What, aside
>from a lack of sufficient time for the amount of genetic change, would
>prevent one species from becoming another species?
>
>> Which is what would have to take place for a complete speciation
>> divergence to take place.
>
>You seem to be defining *species* as meaning the same thing as
>*kind*. But "kind" seems to include a number of different species (as
>defined by biology). You seem to put the "kind" barrier at some level
>of organization that is pretty vague (is it similar to genus, family,
>order, class, or phylum?. Your "kind" is NOT the definition of
>species that has been used in biology since even before Darwin. But
>you haven't told us how one identifies either the "original" or the
>"kind". Those terms seem to be nothing but empty and flexibly vague
>verbiage.
>
>> Everything that I have seen so far says
>> variation happens and it happens all of the time.
>>
>> But there is nothing suggesting a change of the gnome to the point of
>> producing millions upon millions of new species from a SCA happens. In
>> fact, that even reads like a fantasy science fiction movie it is so
>> far fetched.
>
>Time. Oodles and oodles of time, along with changing environments.
>
>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Burkhard
have to be nice to be true. For the issue whether gods exists it is as
irrelevant if they are nice and beneficial or bad and dangerous as it is
for the truth of the ToE if it results in socially undesirable
consequences.
So it makes perfectly good sense to worship gods that are
psychopathic maniacs with the moral fibre of the ebola virus - they
otherwise can do really nasty things to you. You just should drop the
pretence that they are nice and tat is your reason for worship.
Now me, I think one should not encourage this sort of behaviour and
think we are responsible for our gods, so mostly worship the really nice
ones like Alilmenehune, Aine, Acan, Aonghus, Aphroditem, Auseklis (in
months that start with A) to put the right incentive structure in place
- but I admit, this is a high risk strategy.
Desertphile
I wish Ray would point to something--- ANYTHING!--- about
evolutionary tyheory that is wrong so that we can fix it. Odd how
he doesn't bother: he just claims it is wrong, and he never
actually gets around to saying what is wrong about it.
Desertphile
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 7:25�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>> So the Bible stories about God murdering almost everyone are false.
>> Murder is the unauthorized killing of innocent living beings,
"Unauthorized?!" Who the bloody fuck is "authorized" to kill
"living beings?"
I kill tens of thousands of living beings every day: there is no
way I can stop doing so. Just what makes this killing I do
"authoized" or "unauthorized?"
> Clearly newborn or even pre-born babies must have drowned in God's
> Flood (assuming you think such an event happened; I don't). Wouldn't
> such 'living beings' be considered 'innocent' of sin? That would
> leave only your claim that God is 'authorized' (presumably by God) to
> kill whoever He wants, right?
Cult nuts claim to believe no human is innocent, and I suppose
some believe that includes the other animals and plants.