Evolutionist Dogma
Nowhere Man
dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
to show the proofs for their claim.
I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
one life form. That includes humans.
First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
site.
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
"The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
"Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
some other yet to be discovered."
There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
their claim as fact.
They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated
word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
work.
Nowhere Man
AC
> In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In fact,
I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>
> One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> provide the evidence and proofs.
Why don't you use your god instead. Much better example.
>Otherwise there is no reason to
> believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> animals.
We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
by at least one other anima;.
>Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> to show the proofs for their claim.
And it has been done in a number of ways.
>
> I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me).
Does that mean there Newtonists or Quantum Mechanists?
>I will also make
> clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> one life form. That includes humans.
More or less that is common descent.
>
> First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> animal.
It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you please
provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
>Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> site.
>
> From:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
That is correct. Can you think of another rational explanation for the
degree of similiarity between us and the great apes?
>
> "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
That is a reasonable statement based upon observation.
>
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
A reasonable statement based upon the evidence.
>
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact!
If you have an alternate scientific explanation then please provide it/
>Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
Please explain the 98%+ commonality in the genomes of chimps and humans?
BTW. We're not hiding.
>
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
I'm not a biologist and I understand. It isn't complicated at all.
>Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
Some claims are silly. Read all the Biblical flood threads. We've even had
a claim that Noah's ark was a submersible.
>But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling.
Frustration at people who misrepresent (read LIE) about the views of those
who accept evolution will tend to cause outbursts. Mind you, as evidenced
by Sheldon, that is hardly the domain of one group or another.
>What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
How do you explain the fossil and genetic evidence? If you have an
alternate, *falsifiable* theory then please bring it forward. All I see is
another creationist who deals in rhetoric and lies.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Adam Marczyk
news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
>
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
I have a better idea: why don't you tell us what you would accept as proof
of that proposition first, and then we can see if the evidence exists to
meet your standard or not.
--
a.a. #2001
"We have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night."
--Tombstone epitaph of two amateur astronomers,
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Pip R. Lagenta
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
>dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
>textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
>naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
>one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
>for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>
>One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
>then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
>to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
>wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
>provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
>believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
>animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
>could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
>to show the proofs for their claim.
Your strawman is so grotesque that I must call your honesty into
question.
>I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
>Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
>clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
>one life form. That includes humans.
>
>First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
>dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
>site.
Instead of just calling evidence for evolution "dogma", why don't
you present some evidence that our evidence does not mean what we say
it means? Can't do it? I didn't think that you could.
>From:
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
>"Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
>pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
>facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
>rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
Do you have a problem with the evidence for the above statement? Do
you even know what the evidence is?
>"The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
>ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
>support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
>fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
Do you have a problem with the evidence for the above statement? Do
you even know what the evidence is?
>"Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
>ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
>some other yet to be discovered."
>
>There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
>they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
>to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
>fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
>hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
>their claim as fact.
Jeez, guy! Crack a book!
Enter a library and read the science books that present the facts.
How hard is that?
>They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
>to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated
>word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
>is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
>likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
>you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
>ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
>work.
I am unimpressed by your argument from ignorance.
Try:
<http://www.mbdojo.com/%7Eevolution/evolution-for-beginners.html>
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
<http://www.eskeletons.org/>
<http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/historyoflife/histoflife.html>
<http://www.becominghuman.org/>
<http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
<http://tinyurl.com/8bg1>
NEXT!
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
John Harshman
Nowhere Man wrote:
> In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> dogma as scientific fact.
To be more precise, you asserted that without evidence. Big difference.
> Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>
> One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
> believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> to show the proofs for their claim.
Yes, and you are under the burden to show the proofs for the claims you
are making here. Who says?
> I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
> clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> one life form. That includes humans.
Actually, there are lots of theories of evolution. The theory that all
life evolved from one life form (or species) is one of them. Just
remember that there are other theories involved too.
> First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> site.
Nobody denies this, except that it's a dogma. It's not a dogma, but a
well-confirmed inference from plentiful evidence.
> From:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>
> "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
>
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
>
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
OK. Are you willing to read a scientific paper? If so, here are a couple
of references:
Sarich, V. M., and A. C. Wilson. 1967. Immunological time scale for
hominid evolution. Science 158:1200-1203.
Sarich, V. M., and A. C. Wilson. 1967. Rates of albumin evolution in
primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 58:142-148.
Templeton, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restrictin
endonuclease cleavage site maps with particula reference to the
evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
Felsenstein, J. 1987. Estimation of hominoid phylogeny from a DNA
hybridization data set. J. Mol. Evol. 26:123-131.
Hayasaka, K., T. Gojobori, and S. Horai. 1988. Molecular phylogeny and
evolution of primate mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:626-644.
Miyamoto, M. M., C. A. Porter, and M. Goodman. 2000. c-Myc gene
sequences and the phylogeny of bats and other eutherian mammals. Syst.
Biol. 49:501-514.
These are just a few that I happen to have lying around. Primates aren't
my field; if you wanted to know about birds I'd have a lot more.
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
No, I think an educated layman could understand these with a little
work. If you have questions, ask.
> Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
What I've given here is actually evidence that humans and chimps are
related by common descent, but I think you would agree that's close
enough to what you asked for. Unless you want to claim that a common
ancestor of humans and chimps would not be apelike.
If by some chance you don't want to look up and read any of these
publications, let me know and I'll try to summarize a couple of them,
though you will have to accept my summaries as honest.
The main point is that all of these papers, using many different sources
of data, come to the same conclusion: that humans are very closely
related to the African apes (and usually to chimps specifically), less
closely to orangutans, less to gibbons, and less to other primates.
That's not just an opinion, it comes from rigorous and objective
analysis of the data. Now why would all those sources of data agree on
the same tree? A particular pattern of common descent is the only
explanation I can think of. If you can think of another, let's talk
about it.
Dana Tweedy
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
What evidence would you like to see? There is the ever popular fossil
evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
Then there is the molecular evidence
http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Then there is the anatomical evidence
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
tm
Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
tion.html
http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic similarity:
http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
>
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
Or perhaps they will show you the evidence. I provided 16 websites with
evidence for evolution. These only scratch the surface of what is
available. There are also thousands of journal articles, hundreds of books,
tons of fossils, etc. all of which support evolution.
> Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us!
Or maybe show you the evidence.
>Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
Or maybe show you the evidence.
But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal.
You won't see it if you close your eyes, hold your hands over your ears, and
hum loudly.
So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
>
> Nowhere Man
Patiently waiting your denial.
DJT
Fross
Actually I have a question for you. If man and other apes share a common
ancestor, what would you expect to see if such a claim were true and why?
Fross
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
Michael Clark
> dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools.
[it gets worse]
dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1.. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and
faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
Hmmmm. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. Perhaps....
> Nowhere Man
What an appropriate moniker....
mel turner
some_wh...@yahoo.com wrote...
[Okay, fun is fun, but who is this really? You are a loki
troller right?]
Anyway, playing along for now...
>In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
>dogma as scientific fact.
No, you just asserted this, not pointed anything out.
Some of this dogma even slips into science
>textbooks in public schools.
Like?
>There is no excuse for this. Many people
>naturally denied these accusations.
Perhaps they just disagreed with your empty claims? Naah.
So in reply I'm going to focus on
>one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
>for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
Like?
>One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
>then you should be able to prove it false.
Scientific ideas are generally testable [possible to show they
are false if false.] Evolutionary hypotheses tend to be well-tested
by the evidence, and remain well-supported.
This thin reasoning is easy
>to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example.
That's a part of a legal contract requiring gifts to children,
right? [As opposed to the more controversial "Sanity Clause"...]
If someone
>wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
>provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
>believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
>animals.
Humans _are_ animals. So were our ancestors.
>Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong!
Nope. We can simply point to all the evidence that we
are right.
As if one
>could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
>to show the proofs for their claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
>I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
>Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me).
It's more of an "-ology" than an "-ism". "One who accepts the
scientific validity of evolution and common descent" does seem a bit
long, however, so you might as well carry on as is.
I will also make
>clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
>one life form. That includes humans.
That's not an essential part of the theory of evolution, but is
indeed indicated by the available evidence. It might have been
otherwise [i.e., there could have been indications of two or more
completely independent types of life], but "one-type-of-life" seems
to be the case.
>First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>animal.
Not "dogma", a scientific conclusion from the evidence. And for that
matter, modern humans _are_ "ape-like animals". "Apes", if you prefer.
"Hominidae" to be technical.
>Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
>dogma,
They rightly promote it as good science, not "dogma".
>I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
>site.
>
>From:
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
>"Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
>pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
>facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
>rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
Correct. So?
>"The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
>ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
>support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
>fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
And they're absolutely right. And?
>"Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
>ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
>some other yet to be discovered."
Correct again. You were going to attack these claims, remember?
>There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
>they say it's a fact!
And they're right to do so. Would you like to continue on to a
discussion of some of the vast amount of very good evidence that
makes these facts facts?
>Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
>to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence
[Persuasive to whom? To yourself or to all reasonably fair-minded,
scientifically well-informed people?]
>- that this is a fact.
Okely-dokely, neighbor:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/aop_start.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/wieland.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
>Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
>hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
>their claim as fact.
Which claim?
That about humans and other hominids? See above.
The one about birds?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm#archie
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Aves&contgroup=Coelurosauria&dynnodeid=12806
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Coelurosauria&contgroup=Theropoda
http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.html
http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html
http://www.dinosaur.org/news/news01-04-25bird01.html
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDsino.html
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDprot.html
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/06/feathered.dinosaur/index.html
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/evolution_of_dinosaurs.htm
>They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
>to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
Nope. Those schoolkids you're trying to protect from knowledge
should be able to grasp the basics quite well. So should you.
Take our educated
>word for it! We're very smart, trust us!
Nope. Trust the evidence. Or not, it's your loss.
>Or they will say, This claim
>is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
What claim? Did you actually make any yet?
But the most
>likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling.
No, we won't, you silly poopy-head.
What
>you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
>ape-like animal.
Except for all the strong evidence that we're extremely close kin to
the [other] modern apes. And again, we still _are_ "ape-like animals".
>So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
>work.
Well, this is a bit more like play...
cheers
boikat
> dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
"Dogma". You keep on using that word. I do no think it means what you
think it means.
Boikat
Lane Lewis
> dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>
Evolution is a fact it's been observed.
Evolutionist believe that man has evolved from another life form.
It is generally believed that Homo sapiens evolved from a primate.
Homo sapiens and primates share many chacteristics including DNA
Now you may disagree with the above but dogma has nothing to do with it.
If it was your intent to slander or bring false witness you have done
that.
Lane
Mark VandeWettering
> In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> dogma as scientific fact.
Evolution is scientific fact, or rather, a collection of them. We
normally call such promotion as "science education".
> Some of this dogma even slips into science textbooks in public
> schools. There is no excuse for this.
They try hard, but sometimes despite their best efforts some learnin'
happens.
> Many people naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going
> to focus on one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it
> will be harder for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
Simple questions, or questions of a simpleton?
> One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
> believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> to show the proofs for their claim.
Nobody asks you to "prove them wrong", but merely to present evidence
that your conclusion is better founded than evolutionary theory.
Creationism is so weak that the claims made by it to discount evolution
can be easily shown to be piffle with even five minutes of research.
> I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
> clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> one life form. That includes humans.
By your definition many (perhaps even the majority) of Christians are
evolutionists.
> First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> site.
Nobody would try to deny anything which is so obviously true.
> From:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
Yep. Absolutely true. No "evolutionist" would ever try to deny it.
> "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
Yep. Absolutely true. No "evolutionist" would ever try to deny it.
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> There's no denying that claim!
There is no refuting the evidence that supports it either, or at least,
nobody has.
> Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact!
It is a fact. Only perverse people would argue otherwise.
> Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity to provide proof
> - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a fact. Everyone
> reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly hide in the
> corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support their claim
> as fact.
*sigh* Why don't you spend some time in a library? There is more than
one book worth reading.
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
No, but you have to actually try to learn something. This seems to be
beyond most fundamentalists. They develop an intellectual immune system
as children which if still intact by their teenage years if virtually
impossible to breach.
> Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us!
Every time I read something like this, I have to shake my head. Would
you rather place your trust in stupid people?
> Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
*shrug* So don't.
> But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
We could bring up the genetic evidence, including our deactivated gene for
vitamin C production. We could bring up the fossil evidence, showing the
gradual change from apelike animals to hominids to modern man. We could
bring up the obvious homologies between other primates and man. But what
would be the point? We can't get you to reason your way out of a position
that is held contrary to reason.
Mark
> Nowhere Man
Glenn
Mark VandeWettering
> Have you read this
> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Have you read this
http://tinyurl.com/8bos
Mark
Steven J.
> In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>
> One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
> believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> to show the proofs for their claim.
>
presented. At times people asked if you had any evidence that it was
unreasonable to believe this or that narrow point, but no one ever
suggested that the lack of evidence *against* evolution is any reason
to believe it.
>
> I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
> clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> one life form. That includes humans.
>
senses.
[1] Among scientists, and especially biologists, "evolutionist" means
a scientist who studies the processes and mechanisms of evolution.
That is, they try to expalin *how* common descent happens, rather than
simply studying the results of common descent. Not everyone who
accepts evolution is an evolutionist in this sense. Isaac Asimov and
Carl Sagan, for example, were not evolutionists in this sense,
although both were evolutionists in the following sense.
[2] "Evolutionist" can also mean, as you use the term, someone who
accepts some theory of evolution. Note, though, that the theory of
evolution does not claim that all life evolved from one life form;
rather, once you accept common descent as an explanation for the
nested hierarchy of homologies, that evidence leads one to accept
*universal* common descent. But the theory could cope with evidence
for multiple origins of life, and several different, unrelated nested
hierarchies. Note, also, that an "evolutionist" in this sense might
accept mechanisms other than natural selection and genetic drift as
explanations for common descent. "Evolutionist" is a useful term in
this debate, just as "atomist" would be a useful term if we were
arguing with people who disbelieved in atoms, or "heliocentrist" would
be if we were arguing with geocentrists. But not everyone likes the
term, because it can be confused with the sense above and the one
below.
[3] "Evolutionist" also is used to mean an adherent to the alleged
"religion" of "evolutionism," an atheistic belief system adopted
purely to do away with the ideas of God, sin, and judgment to come,
and accepted on blind faith. Since there is no such thing as
"evolutionism," there cannot be "evolutionists" in this sense, but
many creationists believe, or claim to believe, that there are. To
avoid supporting this belief, some "evolutionists" (in sense [2])
refuse to use the term.
>
> First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> site.
>
We do not deny that we present this idea, but we deny that it is a
dogma. It is a conclusion derived from the evidence.
>
> From:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>
> "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
>
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
>
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
>
Well, just for starters, the following evidence is presented on the
site:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
Other FAQs with additional evidence can be found easily, if you look,
and still further evidence elsewhere, in textbooks and scientific
papers.
Let me summarize some of the relevant points: humans and chimps are,
dependingon how you measure it, between 95 and 99% identical
genetically. This degree of similarity is *not* needed by the
similarity in design, since for each amino acid there are from two to
six different codons; we could be only 70% identical to chimps in DNA
sequences, and be just as physically similar to them as we are.
The degree of similarity is not well explained by common design,
because not *all* the identical proteins in humans and chimps are
coded for by identical genes; the gene for cytochrome-c (identical in
humans and chimps, though many different versions, indistiguishable in
function, exist in other species) differs by one nucleotide in humans
and chimps.
Humans and chimps (and other apes and monkeys) share a disabled,
noncoding copy of a gene which, in most other mammals, codes for an
enzyme that helps produce vitamin C. The lack of a functioning
version of this gene is why humans get scurvy if they don't get enough
fruit in their diet. There seems no reason for the Creator either to
provide us with such a pseudogene, or to provide other anthropoids
with a similar pseudogene.
Human chromosome two has, within its length, a vestigial centromere
and telomere at the locations we would expect if it were the result of
a fusion between two chimpanzee genes (humans have 23 chromosome
pairs, while chimps have 24 pairs; each human chromosome has a banding
pattern and gene sequence nearly identical to one chimp gene, except
for chromosome two, which as noted seems to correspond to *two* chimp
genes).
There exist hominid fossils which creationists would insist must be
either "fully formed" humans, or "fully-formed" nonhuman apes, but
concerning whose classification creationists cannot agree. Some of
these fossils straddle any dividing line one might wish to draw
between the human and ape "kinds."
>
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
>
I am not a biologist, and *I* understand much of the evidence. Now,
perhaps ten years would not suffice for you -- but I think that you
should take a look at the evidence before we decide that. No one is
asking you to accept this on blind faith, or on the basis of mere
arguments from authority.
>
> Nowhere Man
-- Steven J.
Adam Marczyk
news:slrnb87q7l.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
Actually, there's a completed version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/trueorigin/fernandez.html
Strangely enough, Talk.Origins links to the original essay it is rebutting;
True.Origin does not link to the rebuttal. Considering the whole point of
the creationists' article is to accuse us of deception by failing to
present the other side of the issue, that seems almost... hypocritical of
them.
Mike the Vike
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
J McCoy
> In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man wrote:
> > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>
> What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In fact,
> I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
>
> By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
> >
> > One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> > then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> > to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> > wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> > provide the evidence and proofs.
>
> Why don't you use your god instead. Much better example.
Wiggling out into accusation rather than answering to support your
view.
>
> >Otherwise there is no reason to
> > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> > animals.
>
> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
> by at least one other anima;.
The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
>
> >Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> > could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> > to show the proofs for their claim.
>
> And it has been done in a number of ways.
>
> >
> > I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> > Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me).
>
> Does that mean there Newtonists or Quantum Mechanists?
>
> >I will also make
> > clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> > one life form. That includes humans.
>
> More or less that is common descent.
>
> >
> > First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> > animal.
>
> It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you please
> provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
What evidence? Whatever you can present is what you can find in a
National Geographic publication. Not very convincing. I've never seen
a ape and man skull comparison chart that accurately depicted
everything to actual scale. The ape skull is always drawn too large.
>
> >Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> > dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> > site.
> >
> > From:
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> >
> > "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> > pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> > facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> > rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>
> That is correct. Can you think of another rational explanation for the
> degree of similiarity between us and the great apes?
It's in the eye of the beholder I guess. Do you wanna bananna?
>
> >
> > "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> > ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> > support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> > fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
>
> That is a reasonable statement based upon observation.
Not very convincing observation I might add. It seems like a lot of
interpretation goes into telling us what those skulls represent.
>
> >
> > "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> > ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> > some other yet to be discovered."
>
> A reasonable statement based upon the evidence.
What evidence? A bunch of ape skulls?
>
> >
> > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > they say it's a fact!
>
> If you have an alternate scientific explanation then please provide it/
So if you do not have another scientific explanation you believe it?
That's stupid.
>
> >Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > their claim as fact.
>
> Please explain the 98%+ commonality in the genomes of chimps and humans?
You mean the selected comparisons?
>
> BTW. We're not hiding.
>
> >
> > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
>
> I'm not a biologist and I understand. It isn't complicated at all.
Tsk. You didn't get his point. I'm not a biologist and I understood
his point.
>
> >Take our educated
> > word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> > is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
>
> Some claims are silly. Read all the Biblical flood threads. We've even had
> a claim that Noah's ark was a submersible.
It was built so that water could not enter the craft from above nor
below. Not quite a submersible, however. Close though.
>
> >But the most
> > likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling.
>
> Frustration at people who misrepresent (read LIE) about the views of those
> who accept evolution will tend to cause outbursts. Mind you, as evidenced
> by Sheldon, that is hardly the domain of one group or another.
>
> >What
> > you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> > ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> > work.
>
> How do you explain the fossil and genetic evidence? If you have an
> alternate, *falsifiable* theory then please bring it forward. All I see is
> another creationist who deals in rhetoric and lies.
Sorry, as it has been explained to you numerous times, you don't have
fossil and genetic evidence. You have selective comparisons, faked
ape-man paintings, misleading statements about gill slits on human
embryos (they don't exist and they are not homologous), and other
numerous fabrications which were documented time and time again.
Admit it, sometimes at night you cry knowing that you can't prove
abiogenesis just as you can't prove Santa Clause. You desparately wish
that some scientist somewhere will come up with that instant life out
of a vat of aminos. To cover that shame, that faith of yours, you try
to come up with meaningless statements that don't even connect to your
assumptions. Calling it "scientific" doesn't put away that false pit
lie of yours. And consider, just because "evolution" is a theory about
things that you see, you can theorize and predict that man will corn
on his nose someday as well, and that would be a naturalistic theory.
But it all lies on the wishful thinking.
They made a movie about the likes of you and it's a Disney film. You
see there is this wooden doll that grows this nose that keeps getting
longer and longer. You see, it's an evolving nose. It grows and grows
with every lie that tells us that evolution is scientific.
J McCoy
David Sienkiewicz
> Nowhere Man wrote:
< snip >
> Have you read this
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Several of us have read it, sheldon, and it was pretty thoroughly
discussed and rebutted in this newsgroup.
Did you read THAT, sheldon?
Bill Rogers
> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message news:<cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> "religion" of "evolutionism," an atheistic belief system adopted
> purely to do away with the ideas of God, sin, and judgment to come,
> and accepted on blind faith. Since there is no such thing as
> "evolutionism," there cannot be "evolutionists" in this sense, but
> many creationists believe, or claim to believe, that there are. To
> avoid supporting this belief, some "evolutionists" (in sense [2])
> refuse to use the term.
> >
>
> -- Steven J.
Steven J. Great post. I am always amazed at your patience and
thoroughness. I have no desire to provide aid and support to Nowhere
Man, but I do disagree a bit on point [3]. It is patently true that
the scientific theory of evolution is neutral with respect to God,
sin, and judgement to come. However, it is equally true that there is
a sort of "evolutionism" which serves as a unified world view,
comparable to a religion. Not the silly social Darwinian business, but
simply a world view that looks upon our existence as the contingent
product of "law and chance," and sees no need to look for any values
or purpose other than those we make for ourselves. That is not part of
the theory of evolution per se and it is perfectly possible to be,
say, a devout Catholic, and an evolutionary biologist. But it always
strikes me as a little disingenuous on our (scientists) part to brush
aside the claim that evolution(ism) is a religion. One of the
functions of a religion is to describe where we come from and why we
are here. Evolution does that, too (if you treat "why" mechanistically
rather than as a values question). Evolution has taken over many of
the functions of religious myths of origins and I think many of us do
indeed incorporate evolution (and abiogenesis and cosmology) into a
bigger more metaphysical world view. It's OK to point out that none of
that is required by the scientific theory of evolution, but it does go
on, and it's fine that it does.
When the creationists get exasperated with us because we keep saying
evolution is not a religion or a world view, I sympathize with them.
It often is extrapolated (quite reasonably in my opinion) to a world
view. I think your namesake is wrong about non-overlapping magesteria.
They really do overlap rather a bit and not always very comfortably.
Bill Rogers
Chris Merli
> >
> > >
> > > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > > they say it's a fact!
> >
> > If you have an alternate scientific explanation then please provide it/
>
> So if you do not have another scientific explanation you believe it?
> That's stupid.
>
I one amazing statement this nominee has demonstrated a nearly perfect lack
of understanding of the entire scientific method.
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
>
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
>
[snip nowhere man]
> Have you read this
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
>
Yes. What an annoying straw-man argument it is. The premise is that TO
FAQs use a bait and switch approach. First they define evolution as
"change over time", which nobody can disagree with, and then they add in
all that humans from monkeys stuff as if it's the same thing.
But the quotes they give from the archive show no such thing. Definition:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution
also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors.
The evidence for historical evolution--genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc.--is
so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution
describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact
and a theory."
Look. All the humans from monkeys crap is right in there from the start
("shared ancestors"). Then they suggest that Christians who believe in
evolution are merely supporting "change over time" and not "humans from
monkeys", which is flat-out wrong, unless you restrict your definition
of "Christian" to "fundamentalist creationist". Talk about lying by
omission.
I see no reason to go on with this.
boikat
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message
news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...
> > In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere
Man wrote:
> > > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> >
> > What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In
fact,
> > I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
>
> Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
>
> >
> > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>
> Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
> Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please present
the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is an atheist.
<snip McNumbnut'z inane babble.>
Boikat
--
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend,
do it in the name of Heaven,
you can justify it in the end.
There wont be any trumpets blowing,
come the judgement day.
On the bloody morning after,
One Tin Soldier rides away.
-- "One Tin Soldier"
Dale
> I will use the old Santa Clause example.
I should like to point out, and I believe even the most wild-eyed
creationist will back me up on this, that a "clause" is: 1. A group of words
containing a subject and a predicate and forming part of a compound or
complex sentence; or 2: A distinct article, stipulation, or provision in a
document.
The semi-mytholigical creature to whom you refer is none of these, as his
name is spelled "Santa Claus".
This is what makes the name of the Tim Allen film, "The Santa Clause",
mildly humorous, because it's a play on words, you see. In the film, Santa
Claus passes the torch to the TIm Allen character just before his untimely
death, and then...oh, never mind.
Dana Tweedy
news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...
> > In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere
Man wrote:
> > > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> >
> > What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In
fact,
> > I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
>
> Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
Who did AC curse here? And what is the "dogma" of Evolution?
>
> >
> > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>
> Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
> Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
We can now add Etymology to the long list of things you know nothing about.
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare
to restrain, tie back
It's defined as:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) :
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or
devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
The definition 1a (2) applies to Creationism.
snipping
>
>
> >
> > >Otherwise there is no reason to
> > > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> > > animals.
> >
> > We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some
degree
> > by at least one other anima;.
>
> The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
Yes, and your argument here is a prime example. The request here was to
cite a single trait that IS NOT shared by some other animal, not one trait
that is in common with another object.
snipping
> > >
> > > First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> > > animal.
> >
> > It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you
please
> > provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
>
> What evidence? Whatever you can present is what you can find in a
> National Geographic publication. Not very convincing.
National Geographic is not the repository of all human knowlege. There is a
great deal more information available than what you can find in NG.
National Geographic is a glossy magazine, that has lots of pretty pictures,
and is aimed squarely at the general public. To read about the work that
scientists are performing and to find a scholarly dissertation on the
evidence, you need to peruse the scientific journals.
> I've never seen
> a ape and man skull comparison chart that accurately depicted
> everything to actual scale. The ape skull is always drawn too large.
1. What comparison charts have you seen?
2. What makes you think you have the slightest idea what the actual sizes
of the skulls are?
>
>
> >
> > >Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> > > dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> > > site.
> > >
> > > From:
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> > >
> > > "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> > > pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> > > facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> > > rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
> >
> > That is correct. Can you think of another rational explanation for the
> > degree of similiarity between us and the great apes?
>
> It's in the eye of the beholder I guess. Do you wanna bananna?
Sure, why not? Bananas are quite tasty. Didn't you claim quite recently
that bananas are specifically designed for humans to eat?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> > > ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> > > support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> > > fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
> >
> > That is a reasonable statement based upon observation.
>
> Not very convincing observation I might add. It seems like a lot of
> interpretation goes into telling us what those skulls represent.
Again, what kind of experience have you had examining fossil skulls? Where
did you get your training on how to interpet the evidence? What courses on
anatomy and physiology have you taken? I should also point out that there
is a great deal more evidence than just the fossil record.
>
> >
> > >
> > > "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> > > ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> > > some other yet to be discovered."
> >
> > A reasonable statement based upon the evidence.
>
> What evidence? A bunch of ape skulls?
Them, plus the post crainial fossils, the molecular evidence, the genetic
evidence, the evidence from anatomy, physiology, biogeography, etc, etc..
>
> >
> > >
> > > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > > they say it's a fact!
> >
> > If you have an alternate scientific explanation then please provide it/
>
> So if you do not have another scientific explanation you believe it?
> That's stupid.
Yes, that was a stupid statment you made. If you wish to challenge the
current scientific explanation, you need to present another scientific
explanation that explains the evidence better. So far all you have is
"Goddidit".
>
> >
> > >Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > > their claim as fact.
> >
> > Please explain the 98%+ commonality in the genomes of chimps and humans?
>
> You mean the selected comparisons?
No, he means 98+% of the human and chimp DNA is identical. It's not
"selected comparisons", but the entire DNA sequence.
>
>
> >
> > BTW. We're not hiding.
> >
> > >
> > > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> > > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
> >
> > I'm not a biologist and I understand. It isn't complicated at all.
>
> Tsk. You didn't get his point. I'm not a biologist and I understood
> his point.
Then what exactly was his point? No one claims that evolutionary theory is
difficult to understand. You don't have to be a trained biologist to
understand evolution, and no one ever claimed that as an excuse for not
presenting the evidence.
>
>
> >
> > >Take our educated
> > > word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> > > is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
> >
> > Some claims are silly. Read all the Biblical flood threads. We've even
had
> > a claim that Noah's ark was a submersible.
>
> It was built so that water could not enter the craft from above nor
> below. Not quite a submersible, however. Close though.
It was never built at all, it's a legend. There is no way to make a wooden
ship of that size completely water tight, even if you have magical gopher
wood, and magical pitch. If you did have a Ark that was water tight, the
occupants would die due to lack of air (no compressed air cylinders, no CO2
scrubbers, no way to pump out the methane fumes etc)
>
>
> >
> > >But the most
> > > likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling.
> >
> > Frustration at people who misrepresent (read LIE) about the views of
those
> > who accept evolution will tend to cause outbursts. Mind you, as
evidenced
> > by Sheldon, that is hardly the domain of one group or another.
> >
> > >What
> > > you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> > > ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> > > work.
> >
> > How do you explain the fossil and genetic evidence? If you have an
> > alternate, *falsifiable* theory then please bring it forward. All I see
is
> > another creationist who deals in rhetoric and lies.
>
>
> Sorry, as it has been explained to you numerous times, you don't have
> fossil and genetic evidence.
There is plenty of both. Mere denial doesn't work.
>You have selective comparisons,
No, you are simply wrong on this.
> faked
> ape-man paintings,
"paintings" aren't used as evidence, they are artist renderings that are
based on the evidence, that fill those pop science magazines that have those
pretty pictures. The artist's conceptions are known to be speculation, and
are not taken as evidence.
> misleading statements about gill slits on human
> embryos (they don't exist and they are not homologous),
Repeating your mistaken impression about this, despite the attempts to
correct you, doesn't make it true.
>and other
> numerous fabrications which were documented time and time again.
However those "documetations" are themselves false and misleading.
>
> Admit it, sometimes at night you cry knowing that you can't prove
> abiogenesis just as you can't prove Santa Clause.
I can't speak for AC, but I have never cried either at night, or during the
day, that abiogenesis cannot be proven. Nothing in science is ever proven,
and abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. As for "Santa Clause",
I can prove it was a movie made in 1994 starring Tim Allen.
> You desparately wish
> that some scientist somewhere will come up with that instant life out
> of a vat of aminos.
Again, speaking for myself, I have no wish, desparate or otherwise, that
someone will show "instant life". Most current hypotheses of abiogenesis
imply that it was a long, step-ways process, not an instant "poof".
> To cover that shame, that faith of yours, you try
> to come up with meaningless statements that don't even connect to your
> assumptions.
That the method of abiogenesis is not yet known is hardly a reason for
"shame". It may never be known, but that has no impact on the theory of
evolution.
> Calling it "scientific" doesn't put away that false pit
> lie of yours.
Exactly what is a "false pit lie"?
> And consider, just because "evolution" is a theory about
> things that you see, you can theorize and predict that man will corn
> on his nose someday as well, and that would be a naturalistic theory.
How does someone "corn on his nose"? Most people with corns have them on
their feet.
> But it all lies on the wishful thinking.
Much like those who wish a geologic feature in Turkey were the remains of an
Ark.
>
> They made a movie about the likes of you and it's a Disney film. You
> see there is this wooden doll that grows this nose that keeps getting
> longer and longer. You see, it's an evolving nose. It grows and grows
> with every lie that tells us that evolution is scientific.
Instead of accusing others of lying, perhaps you should remove that log from
your own eye first.
DJT
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
>> by at least one other anima;.
>
>The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
>Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
Doug
AC
> AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man wrote:
>> > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
>> > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
>> > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
>> > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
>> > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
>> > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>>
>> What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In fact,
>> I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
>
> Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
>
So you've come into this thread not to answer the question as well. Let's
see what lies and evasions you can invoke.
>>
>> By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>
> Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
> Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
Teaching that your god created the world is very much indeed religion. I
would have the same problem with a Hindu teaching their version of creation
in a science classroom.
>
>
>> >
>> > One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
>> > then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
>> > to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
>> > wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
>> > provide the evidence and proofs.
>>
>> Why don't you use your god instead. Much better example.
>
> Wiggling out into accusation rather than answering to support your
> view.
Not wiggling, pointing out that your god is a much better example than Santa
Claus.
>
>
>>
>> >Otherwise there is no reason to
>> > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
>> > animals.
>>
>> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
>> by at least one other anima;.
>
> The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
Nice of you not to answer the question, Mr. McCoy.
>
>
>>
>> >Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
>> > could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
>> > to show the proofs for their claim.
>>
>> And it has been done in a number of ways.
>>
>> >
>> > I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
>> > Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me).
>>
>> Does that mean there Newtonists or Quantum Mechanists?
>>
>> >I will also make
>> > clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
>> > one life form. That includes humans.
>>
>> More or less that is common descent.
>>
>> >
>> > First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>> > animal.
>>
>> It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you please
>> provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
>
> What evidence? Whatever you can present is what you can find in a
> National Geographic publication. Not very convincing. I've never seen
> a ape and man skull comparison chart that accurately depicted
> everything to actual scale. The ape skull is always drawn too large.
Who cares about National Geographic, Mr. McCoy? Yet another evasion.
>
>
>>
>> >Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
>> > dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
>> > site.
>> >
>> > From:
>> >
>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>> >
>> > "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
>> > pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
>> > facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
>> > rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>>
>> That is correct. Can you think of another rational explanation for the
>> degree of similiarity between us and the great apes?
>
> It's in the eye of the beholder I guess. Do you wanna bananna?
Are you saying that you don't see the commonality, or are you saying that
scientists are mistaken? Please be specific.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
>> > ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
>> > support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
>> > fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
>>
>> That is a reasonable statement based upon observation.
>
> Not very convincing observation I might add. It seems like a lot of
> interpretation goes into telling us what those skulls represent.
Do you have another explanation. Please provide it.
>
>>
>> >
>> > "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
>> > ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
>> > some other yet to be discovered."
>>
>> A reasonable statement based upon the evidence.
>
> What evidence? A bunch of ape skulls?
Lucy is more than just an ape skull. Back to being a liar, eh Mr. McCoy?
>
>>
>> >
>> > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
>> > they say it's a fact!
>>
>> If you have an alternate scientific explanation then please provide it/
>
> So if you do not have another scientific explanation you believe it?
> That's stupid.
I want an alternate scientific explanation, and not some mythological
mumbo-jumbo, particularly muttered by known frauds like you, Mr. McCoy.
>
>>
>> >Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
>> > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
>> > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
>> > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
>> > their claim as fact.
>>
>> Please explain the 98%+ commonality in the genomes of chimps and humans?
>
> You mean the selected comparisons?
Are you claiming deception on the part of researchers, Mr. McCoy? Please
answer yes or no. If yes then provide the evidence of these misdeeds.
>
>
>>
>> BTW. We're not hiding.
>>
>> >
>> > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
>> > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
>>
>> I'm not a biologist and I understand. It isn't complicated at all.
>
> Tsk. You didn't get his point. I'm not a biologist and I understood
> his point.
His point is that he believes biologists claim only specialists can
understand evolution. That is lie. But then again, Mr. McCoy, you are very
familiar with lies, being the most unrepentant one in these parts.
>
>
>>
>> >Take our educated
>> > word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
>> > is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it.
>>
>> Some claims are silly. Read all the Biblical flood threads. We've even had
>> a claim that Noah's ark was a submersible.
>
> It was built so that water could not enter the craft from above nor
> below. Not quite a submersible, however. Close though.
It didn't exist at all. There was no global flood. It was discredited over
a hundred years ago.
>
>
>>
>> >But the most
>> > likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling.
>>
>> Frustration at people who misrepresent (read LIE) about the views of those
>> who accept evolution will tend to cause outbursts. Mind you, as evidenced
>> by Sheldon, that is hardly the domain of one group or another.
>>
>> >What
>> > you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
>> > ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
>> > work.
>>
>> How do you explain the fossil and genetic evidence? If you have an
>> alternate, *falsifiable* theory then please bring it forward. All I see is
>> another creationist who deals in rhetoric and lies.
>
>
> Sorry, as it has been explained to you numerous times, you don't have
> fossil and genetic evidence.
Really now.
> You have selective comparisons, faked
> ape-man paintings,
Scientists don't work from paintings. Only frauds like yourself do.
>misleading statements about gill slits on human
> embryos (they don't exist and they are not homologous), and other
> numerous fabrications which were documented time and time again.
Can you please explain the commonality between humans and apes. Or are you
going to evade some more?
>
> Admit it, sometimes at night you cry knowing that you can't prove
> abiogenesis just as you can't prove Santa Clause.
We're not talking about abiogenesis Mr. McCoy. That liar in you can't help
but come out, can it? Only frauds try to evade by changing the subject, and
you are the biggest fraud of them all.
>You desparately wish
> that some scientist somewhere will come up with that instant life out
> of a vat of aminos.
It is not necessary for a scientist to do that, but why change the subject,
Mr. McCoy?
>To cover that shame, that faith of yours, you try
> to come up with meaningless statements that don't even connect to your
> assumptions. Calling it "scientific" doesn't put away that false pit
> lie of yours. And consider, just because "evolution" is a theory about
> things that you see, you can theorize and predict that man will corn
> on his nose someday as well, and that would be a naturalistic theory.
> But it all lies on the wishful thinking.
Why did you change the subject, Mr. McCoy?
>
> They made a movie about the likes of you and it's a Disney film. You
> see there is this wooden doll that grows this nose that keeps getting
> longer and longer. You see, it's an evolving nose. It grows and grows
> with every lie that tells us that evolution is scientific.
Nice rhetoric, but considering the fact that you are a known fraud and liar,
it's simply a matter of pot, kettle, black.
Ferrous Patella
news:vpYga.264866$sf5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net by "Chris Merli"
<clm...@insightbb.com>:
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
Ferrous Patella
<dlha...@attbi.com>:
Doug, may 'we' take this as a Chez Watt nomination?
Ian
"Bill Rogers" <bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net> wrote in message
news:8984713a.03032...@posting.google.com...
Wouldn't this more accurately be called philosophical naturalism? While
evolution most likely will be a part of a philosophical naturalist's
outlook, calling that outlook "evolutionism" seems more an attempt to label
it as a sect, something creationists are familiar, and comfortable, with
rather than an accurate description.
> When the creationists get exasperated with us because we keep saying
> evolution is not a religion or a world view, I sympathize with them.
> It often is extrapolated (quite reasonably in my opinion) to a world
> view. I think your namesake is wrong about non-overlapping magesteria.
> They really do overlap rather a bit and not always very comfortably.
>
> Bill Rogers
>
A philosophical naturalist may come to that outlook from a path that begins
with an understanding of evolution (extrapolating if you will), but that
does not make philosophical naturalism "evolutionism". The word is used as
an epithet, largely by creationists who's world view is sectarian and who
seek to categorize it in a way they understand (false religion).
Whatever one thinks of the merits of philosophical naturalism, calling it
"evolutionism" is neither accurate, or wise (in my view). It is more of a
capitulation to the obscurantists who have created this conflict between
science and religion.
Descriptions of things I've misconstrued, misunderstood, or displayed total
ignorance about go below:
-Ian
Doug Haxton
<mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in
>>>> some degree by at least one other anima;.
>>>
>>>The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
>>>Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
>>
>> Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
>> Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
>>
>
>Doug, may 'we' take this as a Chez Watt nomination?
Oh, by all means!
Doug
AC
It is indeed a supremely idiotic statement. I just can't imagine the kind
of thought processes that would generate something so absolutely moronic.
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...
> > > In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere
> Man wrote:
> > > > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> > > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> > >
> > > What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In
> fact,
> > > I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
> >
> > Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
> >
> > >
> > > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
> >
> > Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
> > Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
>
> Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please present
> the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is an atheist.
The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
people. That creationism is officially held by any church as a
doctrine, or formulation of creed, is debatable.
Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
creation.
Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
on religious humanism.
J McCoy
J McCoy
Yep. Somebody has to get out their Websters dictionary. I don't
dispute anything that is written here. What I am disputing is the fact
that I am right nonetheless. Evidently you've never taken any history
classes on Roman history. Words change their meanings over time. When
religion, formerly lost it's secular meaning, it only did so because
churches were the most common groups of people around. And since they
appropriated a secular term to themselves, which is natural,
nonetheless because it merely indicates a group, in later times the
term stuck only to them.
Irregardless, abiogenesis is a matter of faith. And you can't dispute
that, religious one.
>
>
> The definition 1a (2) applies to Creationism.
>
> snipping
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >Otherwise there is no reason to
> > > > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> > > > animals.
> > >
> > > We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some
> degree
> > > by at least one other anima;.
> >
> > The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> > Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
>
> Yes, and your argument here is a prime example. The request here was to
> cite a single trait that IS NOT shared by some other animal, not one trait
> that is in common with another object.
Invertibrates, vertibrates, etc.
>
> snipping
>
> > > >
> > > > First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> > > > animal.
> > >
> > > It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you
> please
> > > provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
> >
> > What evidence? Whatever you can present is what you can find in a
> > National Geographic publication. Not very convincing.
>
> National Geographic is not the repository of all human knowlege. There is a
> great deal more information available than what you can find in NG.
> National Geographic is a glossy magazine, that has lots of pretty pictures,
> and is aimed squarely at the general public. To read about the work that
> scientists are performing and to find a scholarly dissertation on the
> evidence, you need to peruse the scientific journals.
Are you telling a joke? With all the arms up at arms on creationism,
you'd think the evolutionists would go after National Geographic, Time
magazine, and the whole lot of them for the garbage that they print in
the name of evolution. But a little bird spoke to me the other day
telling me that the reason evolutionists do not go around debunking NG
and Time is that they need a good tractate around to convince the
unsuspecting and gullible public.
Enough for now.
J McCoy
Thomas H. Faller
>... However, it is equally true that there is
>a sort of "evolutionism" which serves as a unified world view,
>comparable to a religion. Not the silly social Darwinian business, but
>simply a world view that looks upon our existence as the contingent
>product of "law and chance," and sees no need to look for any values
>or purpose other than those we make for ourselves. That is not part of
>the theory of evolution per se and it is perfectly possible to be,
>say, a devout Catholic, and an evolutionary biologist. But it always
>strikes me as a little disingenuous on our (scientists) part to brush
>aside the claim that evolution(ism) is a religion.
Bill, this is a good point, but I should bring out the fact that
this worldview is not restricted to believers of evolution. It
is an almost inescapable consequence of many of the branches of
modern science, or even of just an informed study of world religions.
I'm not implying that religious people are ignorant of science,
current events or their own religion; being informed does not
mean being converted, as Christian scholars of Islam do not
automatically acknowledge Allah as supreme. But in todays conditions,
many who find careers in science find less need to believe in
God as motivator of events around them, and as final arbitrator
of morals. Let me explain:
In astronomy, my first career choice, our knowledge about the
universe and its history has exploded in the past half century.
We are now more aware of what is out there and how it got there
than ever before, and it makes all of the creation stories seem
quaint. The scope of the universe makes it so unlikely that there
is a Creator who takes a personal interest in our own species. In
times past, we only had to consider our own region, and eventually
our own planet in the Creation - now there are billions of galaxies
which need consideration.
Let me give you a mental picture that I read in Dawkins book,
Unweaving the Rainbow. Imagine a space 20 miles on a side. Place
a single grain of sand in it, to represent the combined mass of
the universe. Now separate that grain into 1,000 million million
million stars (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). It isn't a question
of whether there is a God capable of overseeing this, it's a
question of whether the God we have been raised with is in any
way recognizable as that god.
My next career was geology, and in hands-on examination of the
evidence of geologic history, I found abundant testamony of
life being independent of any overall spiritual purpose. Species
change, species becme extinct, and the record of life on earth does
not point towards the eventual acendance of humans. An interest
in human anthropology grew out of my interest in fossils, and
it added evidence that humans have not been aware of, or devoted
to any single god for most of their history, and that moral behavior
has roots much deeper in our behavior than scriptural proscription.
In studying other religions, we can see the shared needs and
emotions they respond to, and the ways that seemingly minor figures
can have influence on history well out of proportion to the logic
or morality of their doctrine. We have also found many more
indications, both from the discovery of documents and from textural
analysis of the Bible, that Christianity was born of human roots,
instead of standing apart. This is known to many Christians, and
does not interfere with their moral views, nor does it lead to
despair or moral breakdown.
> One of the
>functions of a religion is to describe where we come from and why we
>are here.
Yes, but that is not the main function of any religion, nor is it
the main function of science or evolution. Religions provide a way
for people to interact with forces that they feel influence their
life - whether these are dead ancestors, gods or local witches.
Providing answers to questions of existance is secondary to religion,
although widespread. The function of science is to describe and
explain processes, and many of these have no bearing on our origin
or why we are here. So science does not take the place of a religion,
and at best, non-theists use science as a backstop, not a catch-all.
It provides some checkable answers, but not all answers.
>When the creationists get exasperated with us because we keep saying
>evolution is not a religion or a world view, I sympathize with them.
But I think their problem is that they can't picture a life without
a religion, or that they see science's answers as arbitrary and
authority-derived as religion's. The "world-view" of science goes
much deeper than whether the earth is young or old, or whether
morals are arbitrary or ordained. It's a way of looking at the
world and constantly questioning what you see, or trying to see
the effects of a process in the ordinary details of life.
I was watching the maple trees outside my second story office
window come into leaf this week (Atlanta) and besides the new
flush of green in my view, I was examining the branches, trying to
figure if they all try to asume an upward curve, to balance the
weight of the developing leaf cover, and noticed that maple leaves
all grow upwards from a few locations, regularly spaced along the
twigs, as opposed to the birches, dogwoods and ash which bloom
differently. I also noticed that the aphids cluster at the tips
of the blooming twigs, where the bark is thinnest and the sap at
its most active, but it makes a much longer walk for their ant
tenders.
A problem I notice with many people who post anti-evolution messages
to this forum is that they don't examine nature in this detail or
chase down questions about nature by examining real objects. The
substitution of pat arguments for field experience is a real barrier
to treating them as equal investigators, since I know that in many
cases about scientific problems, you have to "get your hands dirty"
in order to internalize the answers. It's just too easy to play
"fact of the week" and end up with a mind full of compartments,
none of which takes priority over the others.
I could believe that a weak form of anti-gravity is possible, but
not any research that proclaims that the earth is flat. That kind
of prioritizing gives structure to my skepticism. In contrast,
some people who post here can believe any number of impossible
things before breakfast - because they aren't sure about anything.
Bill, although I've snipped away much of your post, and you
might think I'm attacking your views personally here, I'm not.
You brought up several good items for discussion, and I got
swept up...
Tom Faller
AC
It is held by a number. I was once personally associated with a religious
group who held Biblical creationism as a central tenet of their faith.
>
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
So, what is the scientific theory of creation? If there is truly something
called "scientific creationism", then all those "scientific creationists"
must have a scientific theory of creation.
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
Even if I were to accept humanism as a religion (which I don't) what does
that have to do with evolution? Just because a group espouses a scientific
theory as a tenet of their own particular movement (religious or not) says
nothing of the theory. This is just a pathetic little "guilt by assocation"
ploy, no different than the "Stalin was a Darwinist" nonsense that is so
often repeated. It wouldn't effect my view of evolution in the least if a
bunch of crazy wankers in Los Angeles started the Church of Evolution and
worshipped Darwin as the Holy Prophet of Nature.
Frank J
> Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
How do we know that man was created in God's image?
God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
inordinate fondness for Beatles.
>
> Actually I have a question for you. If man and other apes share a common
> ancestor, what would you expect to see if such a claim were true and why?
(snip)
My guess is that NM is just another troll, but I am fascinated at how
such posters totally ignore at least two legitimate scientific
hypotheses for independent origin of species. Granted, they are not
successful hypotheses, but they are a universe better than the
arguments-from-incredulity of the pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists.
Frank J
(snip)
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Ah yes, the "pilfered masthead site."
Dana Tweedy
Good, I dispute you are right too. You are obviously wrong.
> Evidently you've never taken any history
> classes on Roman history.
Evidently you know nothing about Roman history. I am quite familiar with
ancient Rome, and Roman history. I would be greatly surprised if you could
tell a gladiator from a praetorian guard.
> Words change their meanings over time. When
> religion, formerly lost it's secular meaning, it only did so because
> churches were the most common groups of people around.
Your citation for this is.....?
> And since they
> appropriated a secular term to themselves, which is natural,
> nonetheless because it merely indicates a group, in later times the
> term stuck only to them.
No, the word comes from the latin word for "Constraint" or "Bondage". See:
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=relig&ending=ion
religatio -onis f. [tying up].
religio (relligio) -onis f. , of persons, [scrupulousness, conscientious
exactness]; esp. [religious scruple, awe, superstition, strict observance];
in gen. [moral scruples, conscientiousness]; of gods, etc., [sanctity]; [an
object of worship, holy thing or place].
religiosus (relligiosus) -a -um of persons , [scrupulous, conscientious;
holy, strict, superstitious]; of actions, either [required] or [forbidden by
religion]; of gods, etc. [holy, sacred]. Adv. religiose, [conscientiously,
scrupulously; religiously].
religo -are [to tie on , fasten behind].
>
> Irregardless, abiogenesis is a matter of faith. And you can't dispute
> that, religious one.
No, abiogenesis is a matter of fact. We know that life started, somehow.
There are several promising lines of study that may be able to eventually
tell us how life began on earth. It doesn't take "faith" to understand that
at one time there was no life, and now there is. In any case, abiogenesis
is not part of evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > The definition 1a (2) applies to Creationism.
> >
> > snipping
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Otherwise there is no reason to
> > > > > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved
from
> > > > > animals.
> > > >
> > > > We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in
some
> > degree
> > > > by at least one other anima;.
> > >
> > > The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> > > Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> >
> > Yes, and your argument here is a prime example. The request here was
to
> > cite a single trait that IS NOT shared by some other animal, not one
trait
> > that is in common with another object.
>
> Invertibrates, vertibrates, etc.
Yes, invertibrates and vertibrates are animals. Now, all you need to do is
come up with some feature that humans do not share with some other animal.
>
>
> >
> > snipping
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
> > > > > animal.
> > > >
> > > > It isn't dogma, it's simply a statement of the evidence. Could you
> > please
> > > > provide your definition of the word "dogma"?
> > >
> > > What evidence? Whatever you can present is what you can find in a
> > > National Geographic publication. Not very convincing.
> >
> > National Geographic is not the repository of all human knowlege. There
is a
> > great deal more information available than what you can find in NG.
> > National Geographic is a glossy magazine, that has lots of pretty
pictures,
> > and is aimed squarely at the general public. To read about the work
that
> > scientists are performing and to find a scholarly dissertation on the
> > evidence, you need to peruse the scientific journals.
>
> Are you telling a joke?
No, I am giving your information.
> With all the arms up at arms on creationism,
> you'd think the evolutionists would go after National Geographic, Time
> magazine, and the whole lot of them for the garbage that they print in
> the name of evolution.
National Geographic and Time are not scientific journals. And yes,
scientists are aware that National Geographic and Time sometimes get
technical details wrong.
> But a little bird spoke to me the other day
> telling me that the reason evolutionists do not go around debunking NG
> and Time is that they need a good tractate around to convince the
> unsuspecting and gullible public.
That's what you get for listening to little birds. Scientists publish their
information in technical journals, and it's not their fault if journalists
sometimes get the science part wrong. However National Geographic does a
reasonably good job at presenting modern science correctly, if a bit
oversensationalized. BTW, what is a "tractate"?
>
> Enough for now.
Avoiding the real questions again, I see.
Mark VandeWettering
>> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
>> > AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message
>> news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...
>> > > In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere
>> Man wrote:
>> > > > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
>> > > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
>> > > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
>> > > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
>> > > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
>> > > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
>> > >
>> > > What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In
>> fact,
>> > > I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
>> >
>> > Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>> >
>> > Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
>> > Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
>>
>> Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please present
>> the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is an atheist.
>
> The word religion comes from re and legion.
*sigh* No, it doesn't. The online version of the Century Dictionary
claims that even ancient writers had difficulty with its origins.
Cicero claimed the word came from _relegere_, to go over again in reading,
speech or thought. Servius, Lactanius, and Augustine claim the word comes
from _religare_, to bind back or bind fast, as in obligation.
Merriam Webster's online dictionary gives the following:
Main Entry: re·li·gion <http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif>
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY Date: 13th century
> Legion meaning a group of people. That creationism is officially held
> by any church as a doctrine, or formulation of creed, is debatable.
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
Many humanists probably like ice cream too, the bastards...
You do realize that there are both religious and secular humanists,
don't you?
Mark
boikat
Take an electrical cord off a lamp and separate the two wires. Shave the
insulation off of the ends that were removed from the light socket. Fluff
out the wire strands in each wire. Stick the end of one wire in your left
ear, and the other wire in your right ear. Insert plug into socket.
Cook brain for at least twenty seconds, or until smoke emerges from nose,
and materials with a foamy consistancy emerges from ears.
Have a friend unplug the electrical cord.
Have friend place you in front of a computer.
Boikat
boikat
Not in modern usage, McTwit.
>
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
Big flipping deal. They are not doing science, since they already have
decided what the results will be, and even do so far as to totally discard
or ignore evidence that contradicts their claim. That is because the
doctrine of creationism is a dogma in their minds. Science, OTOH, takes any
contradictory data and attempts to account for it by further study and
modification of the theory if needed. But you are too stupid to understand
that.
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
So what? Some Christians also accept evolution. What does that have to do
with the false claim the evolution is a religion?
boikat
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Fross" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<y9SdnaY-8ZT...@comcast.com>...
> > Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
>
> Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
>
> How do we know that man was created in God's image?
>
> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
The Who?
Boikat
J McCoy
I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
That's a whale of a tale.
J McCoy
>
> Doug
Nowhere Man
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > their claim as fact.
>
Any evidence would be nice. I've taken the time to carefully examine
your online articles.
There is the ever popular fossil
> evidence:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
Are you really serious? Now how can anyone tell the difference between
a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape? Humans
come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of
evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls?
Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to
forge?
Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's
Word the Bible? Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were
connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were
just a few strange skulls? If you don't start with the assumption of
the evolution dogma the answer is clear.
> Then there is the molecular evidence
> http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
> http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
> http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with
evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought
(somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life
form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page
which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is
humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.
> Then there is the anatomical evidence
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
> tm
Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with
various animal species we must have came from animals! We look
somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape! So
if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came
from something like a dog or a cow.
So anatomical similarities fit your idea of evolution. Big deal. That
doesn't make your idea true. Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's
idea of creation. Does that mean creation is true too? It could be
either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so
it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact.
That's bad science.
> Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
> http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
> http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
> tion.html
> http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal
issue.
> And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic similarity:
> http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
> http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
> http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
> http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities.
There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic
similarity. The design explanation deals with the issue much better.
So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.
> > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
>
> Or perhaps they will show you the evidence. I provided 16 websites with
> evidence for evolution. These only scratch the surface of what is
> available. There are also thousands of journal articles, hundreds of books,
> tons of fossils, etc. all of which support evolution.
Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man
from ape-animals a fact. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I
still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma. What would I
expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?
* No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
* No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
* No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
* Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
* Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000
years ago to now.
* Lots of evidence for intelligent man back until about 6000 years ago
where it comes to a sudden stop.
Funny how the real world matches the Bible so perfectly.
Nowhere Man
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> >> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
>> >> by at least one other anima;.
>> >
>> >The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
>> >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
>>
>> Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
>> Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
>
>I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
>believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
>know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
>in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
>
>But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
>That's a whale of a tale.
Since you've been kind enough to respond to me, Iet me take the
opportunity to ask you for the third time:
You said that there are "untold stars" that are too far away to be
seen.
If we can't see them, how do you know that they're there?
Doug
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<kmZga.662$5A6...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com>...
.
> >
> > Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please
present
> > the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is an atheist.
>
> The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
> people. That creationism is officially held by any church as a
> doctrine, or formulation of creed, is debatable.
As I pointed out before, your etymology is as faulty as your biology. The
word Religion is not related to "legion" The words have seperate latin
roots.
>
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
No, "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron. Creationism is an attempt to
translate the first chapters of Genesis into a pseudoscientific doctrine.
It's a transparent scheme to get a religious belief under the 1st Amendment
radar, and into public schools.
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists,
Evolution is a scientific theory. If it's held as a "tenet" by "religious
humanists" (another oxymoron) then so is Gravity, Atomic and Germ theory.
That it may be held by some people to support their personal beliefs is no
reason to claim the theory itself is religious.
> and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
What universities are those? Name them.
DJT
rossum
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
[snip]
>First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>animal.
[snip]
>There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
>they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
>to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
>fact.
Others have provided references to some relevant scientific papers and
web sites.
The basic evidence for man's evolution from an ape-like animal is in
four independent areas:
1 Anatomical. The living animals that are the most similar to humans
are the African great apes, in particular the Chimpanzee. When
Linnaeus first classified the Chimpanzee he called it "Homo
troglodytes". Note that "Homo", just the same as in "Homo sapiens".
Linnaeus was a creationist writing in the eighteenth century. It was
obvious then that we are very similar to apes. We share a lot of
characteristics with the apes, and indeed we can be classified as an
Ape ourselves: large brain, no tail, tendancy to upright stance. We
are also mammals: hair, milk, warm blood. We are also vertebrates,
metazoans and eukaryotes. We fit neatly into the overall hierarchical
classification of living things, right in among the apes.
2 DNA. Human DNA is the most similar to Chimp DNA. There is no great
gulf between the two. A many proteins are identical between the two.
It is also remarkable that the hierarchy derived from DNA is the same
as the hierarchy derived from Anatomy that was developed before Darwin
and before the discovery of DNA. This is two independent
confirmations. As any court will tell you, more independent witnesses
will add weight to a case. The same is true in science.
3 Fossils. We have fossils of apes that walked upright:
Australopithecus africanus with ape-like heads on an upright walking
body. Then we have similar not-exactly-apes-any-more with a larger
brain and slightly less ape-like heads on an even more human-like
body: Homo habilis. The process continues with Homo erectus - brain
getting bigger, skull more human-like and body about as well adapted
for an upright stance as ours is. Homo heidelbergensis is nicely
intermediate between H. erectus and ourselves with a larger brain and
a reduction in the remaining ape-like features such as smaller teeth,
and a less robust skeleton. We are the latest in the series. Our
brains are even bigger our teeth even smaller and our skeletons the
least robust. Again note that the fossil evidence is independent of
both the anatomical evidence and the DNA evidence. This is three
independent strands of evidence.
4 Biogeography. As Darwin was well aware, when a new species forms it
will do so close to where its predecessors lived. All the fossils of
early human ancestors come from Africa. It was only once we had
developed as far as H. erectus that we left Africa for the first time.
Had early human fossils all been found in Mesopotamia, near the
Euhrates river for example, then that would have been very puzzling.
However they weren't, they were found where Darwin predicted that they
would be, in Africa. This is a fourth strand of independent evidence
that man evolved from an ape-like animal.
>Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
>hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
>their claim as fact.
Fine, I hope everyone is watching, or would you like me to make more
noise?
rossum
[Snip]
>Nowhere Man
AC
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
>> >> by at least one other anima;.
>> >
>> >The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
>> >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
>>
>> Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
>> Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
>
> I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
> know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
Your nonsense was already noted, do you need to compound it? Is it your
purpose to absolutely discredit yourself?
>
> But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
> That's a whale of a tale.
Why do you feel the need to lie? Is lying just something that comes so
naturally to you that it sounds like truth? Are you this way in every
aspect of your life? Do you treat everyone and every subject with such an
extraordinary lack of honor, decency and dignity
The theory is that whales and cows have a common ancestor. I'm sure you
aware of this, but the need to lie is so strong within you that you cannot
resist spouting falsehood. And please, don't try to turn this around,
because then I'm going to demand that you provide citations in peer-reviewed
journals where biologists state that whales came from cows. And we both
know very well that no biologists make that claim, and we both know that you
are lying, so I would think now would be a good time for you to disengage.
Dana Tweedy
news:<opr88voo0v5uamsgs...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some
degree
> > >> by at least one other anima;.
> > >
> > >The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> > >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> >
> > Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
> > Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
>
> I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe.
Gee, John, the only one here that claimed that we are related to rocks,
is.... well..... you.
> You
> know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
Who has suggested that? Seems the only one who said that is..... well,
.......you.
>
> But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
Hmmm, who said anything about cows evovling into whales..... why that
was...... well,.....you again.
> That's a whale of a tale.
True, but since you are the only one claiming that, it's you again who have
egg on his face.
DJT
Nowhere Man
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> >
> > then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> > to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> > wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> > could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> > to show the proofs for their claim.
> >
> > clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> > one life form. That includes humans.
> >
> > dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> > site.
> >
> > From:
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> >
> > "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> > pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> > facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> > rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
> >
> > ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> > support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> > fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
> >
> > ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> > some other yet to be discovered."
> >
> > they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > their claim as fact.
> >
> > word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> > likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> > you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> > ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> > work.
> >
> >
>
> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
Nowhere Man
Wally Anglesea
wrote:
>"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<kmZga.662$5A6...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com>...
The why doesn't it take into account Polynesian creation mythology?
Why does it not take into account Ancient Chinese, Javan, Egyptian,
Phoenecian, Greek, Norse, or Australian Aboriginal creation mythology?
The list can continue as long as you want it.
Face it, Creation "science" starts from the presumption, and firm
belief that the revealed word of God is only available in the Old
Testament and Torah, and that all other creation stories are nonsense.
Hypocritical.
>
>Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
>signers of Humanist Manifesto I.
I signed no such document.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Leonardo Dasso
[snip]
>
> The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
> people.
No. It doesnt. Religion comes from Latin "religio" meaning
"supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice", perhaps from
"religare" to restrain, tie back.
regards
leo
Dirk Murcray
><snip>
> animal. Before they try and deny that evolutionists promote this
> dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> site.
>
> From:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>
> "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
>
> "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> some other yet to be discovered."
>
> There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> their claim as fact.
So, Mr. Nowhere man (appropriate name for a troll who's conspicuously
absent from his own thread), who's denying it?
>
> They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated
> word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
> likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> work.
No one will say anything of the kind. All that is necessary is to
point to the abundant intermediate fossils that can be credibly
explained only by evolution.
>
> Nowhere Man
Ferrous Patella
some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
I thought God could do anything. I mean, what's the point of being
omnipotent and all that if you can't do what ever you want?
--
Ferrous Patella
Every chicken dinner stops a beating heart.
Pip R. Lagenta
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>"Mike the Vike" <tui...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<QKTga.261109$sf5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
>> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
>If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
>witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
Ha!
<http://home.attbi.com/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
Ferrous Patella
<Lda...@btinternet.com>:
Oooohhh, kinky! I may have underestimated this religion thing!
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:27:22 +0000 (UTC), some_wh...@yahoo.com
> (Nowhere Man) wrote:
>>First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>>animal.
> 1 Anatomical. The living animals that are the most similar to humans
> are the African great apes, in particular the Chimpanzee. When Linnaeus
> first classified the Chimpanzee he called it "Homo troglodytes". Note
> that "Homo", just the same as in "Homo sapiens". Linnaeus was a
> creationist writing in the eighteenth century. It was obvious then that
> we are very similar to apes. We share a lot of characteristics with the
> apes, and indeed we can be classified as an Ape ourselves: large brain,
> no tail, tendancy to upright stance. We are also mammals: hair, milk,
> warm blood. We are also vertebrates, metazoans and eukaryotes. We fit
> neatly into the overall hierarchical classification of living things,
> right in among the apes.
I wonder whether evolution deniers think humans are mammals, and if so
what that tells them.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
R Brown
news:<QKTga.261109$sf5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> > >
> > > then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> > > to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> > > wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> > > provide the evidence and proofs. Otherwise there is no reason to
> > > believe such silliness. Evolutionists will claim that man evolved from
> > > animals. Then they will ask you if you can prove them wrong! As if one
> > > could prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist! They are under the burden
> > > to show the proofs for their claim.
> > >
> > > I was asked to provide a definition of evolutionist: Supporter of the
> > > Theory of Evolution (seemed pretty obvious to me). I will also make
> > > clear that the theory of evolution claims that all life evolved from
> > > one life form. That includes humans.
> > >
> > > dogma, I will present it. This is directly from this newsgroup's own
> > > site.
> > >
> > > From:
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> > >
> > > "Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who
> > > pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these
> > > facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round,
> > > rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
> > >
> > > "The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common
> > > ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in
> > > support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a
> > > fact by any common definition of the word "fact.""
> > >
> > > "Facts are the world's data. ... And humans evolved from ape-like
> > > ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
> > > some other yet to be discovered."
> > >
> > > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > > they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > > their claim as fact.
> > >
> > > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand. Take our educated
> > > word for it! We're very smart, trust us! Or they will say, This claim
> > > is so silly that I can hardy even bear to bother with it. But the most
> > > likely thing is that they will resort to childish name-calling. What
> > > you will not see is evidence for this claim - that man evolved from an
> > > ape-like animal. So get your popcorn and enjoy the evolutionists at
> > > work.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
>
>
Hey Nowhere Man, I think my karma just ran over your dogma.
AC
> news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com by
> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
>
>> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
>> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
>
>
> I thought God could do anything. I mean, what's the point of being
> omnipotent and all that if you can't do what ever you want?
I understand this is a big problem for God. But He and His therapist are
working through His issues, and I'm certain He will be a better god for it.
He'll just have to learn the little litany "I cannot make a stone so big
that I cannot push it... I cannot make make a stone so big that I cannot
push it..."
AC
>
> "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>>
>> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
>> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
>>
>> Nowhere Man
>>
> Hey Nowhere Man, I think my karma just ran over your dogma.
Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna look you right in the face,
Better get yourself together darlin',
Join the human race...
Dale
> > The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
> > people.
That's just bad etymology. You can't get "legion" from "ligion", it just
doesn't work that way.
Here are some more accurate etymological opinions about "regligion" found on
the web.
[Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi,
religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.]
or
[F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein
to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
or
I. On the etymology of "religion"
A. Etymology:
1. religio: etymologies
a. re-ligare : "to bind back": > religio "a 'bond'
between man and the gods (God)" (lig- 'bind')
1) Lactantius (260 - 340 ce): "by this fetter of piety we are bound
(re-ligate) . . . to God...":
2) Emphasis on a power outside of humans obligating him to certain behavior
under pain of retribution: the objective viewpoint
b. re-leg re: "to carefully gather"; "to carefully choose"; "to read over
again" (leg- gather, study, read'); "to pay attention to"
1) Cicero (106 - 43 bce): "carefully gathering; choosing; reading"; "paying
attention" (compare to nec-leg re > neg- leg re 'neg-lect'; that is, to
"disregard"
2) Emphasis on the human relation to the gods and so was subjective and
interior to persons.
Dick C
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com:
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<kmZga.662$5A6...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>> > >
>> > > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
>> >
>> > Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
>> > Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
>>
>> Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please
>> present the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is
>> an atheist.
>
> The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
> people. That creationism is officially held by any church as a
> doctrine, or formulation of creed, is debatable.
No, it does not, and I am sure that you are quite aware that it doesn't.
Creationism is taught only in religious institutions, including
churches.
>
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
No, it does not. Scientific creationism is nothing more than
a bunch of people lying about science to the faithful.
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
Meaningless assertion. Evolution is studied and accepted by people
irregardless of their religious beliefs. That one small group of
people may hold some aspect of science as a part of their religion
does not make it a religion. However a doctrine based only upon
one holy book is religious.
Lots of things are taught in universities. And I doubt that religious
humanism is taught anymore than than any other religion is taught.
And what you call religious humanism probably isn't.
>
> J McCoy
>
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com
Dana Tweedy
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b60ftb$hlqt$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > snipping a lot of verbage
> >
> >
> > > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > > they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > > their claim as fact.
> >
> > What evidence would you like to see?
>
>
> Any evidence would be nice. I've taken the time to carefully examine
> your online articles.
I posted this at 10:30 last night. There is hardly enough time for you have
carefully examined all those sites.
>
>
> There is the ever popular fossil
> > evidence:
> > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> > http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
>
>
> Are you really serious?
Yes, I am serious.
> Now how can anyone tell the difference between
> a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape?
Good question. One would think that God would have made us a great deal
more dissimilar to apes, if we were a entirely separate creation.
> Humans
> come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of
> evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls?
Due to the nature of fossilization and the habitat where ancient homonids
lived, it's not likely that a lot of post crainal material will be found.
That being said, there does exist a good deal of post cranial material in
human fossils. The famous "Lucy" fossil is 40% complete. The Turkana Boy
fossil of H. erectus is more than 80% complete.
> Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to
> forge?
What evidence do you have for this rather serious accusation? Don't want to
be bearing false witness, do you?
>
> Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's
> Word the Bible?
Absolutely. The earth is not flat. Rabbits don't chew thier cud. Pi does
not = 3. There are many other examples where the Bible and reality are at
odds.
>Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were
> connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were
> just a few strange skulls?
Those "strange skulls" are in exactly the right time and place for them to
be intermediate between apes and humans. They make a finely graduated
sequence of fossil evidence linking humans with non human primate ancestors.
There are more than just a "few strange skulls", but the remains over over
300 individuals over 5 million years. They also are consistent with the
evidence from the other fields of study. You can't just dismiss this
evidence with a wave of your hand.
>If you don't start with the assumption of
> the evolution dogma the answer is clear.
Evolution is not an assumption, it's a scientific theory.
>
>
> > Then there is the molecular evidence
> > http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
> > http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
> > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
>
>
> Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with
> evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought
> (somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life
> form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page
> which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is
> humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.
So, you simply wave away this evidence, because you can't understand it.
Denial is not a point of view.
>
>
> > Then there is the anatomical evidence
> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> > http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
> >
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
> > tm
>
>
> Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with
> various animal species we must have came from animals!
Yes, what other explanation makes any sense? Why do we resemble some
animals more than others? Why do we share certian anatomical similarities,
unless we are related to other animals?
>We look
> somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape!
We look more like apes than any other animal group. Are you suggesting that
is merely co-incidence? Not only do we look like apes, we have the same
bone structure, genetic structre, and biochemical structure as apes. Why
would this be, unless we were related to apes?
>So
> if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came
> from something like a dog or a cow.
What makes you so sure? Humans share more anatomical similiarities with
dogs than we do cows. We share more anatomical similarities with cows than
we do snakes, We share more anatomical similarities with snakes than we do
with frogs, and so on..... What explanation do you have for this?
>
> So anatomical similarities fit your idea of evolution. Big deal.
Yes, that's what evidence is, information that supports the theory.
> That
> doesn't make your idea true.
It's strong evidence that suggests it's true. It invalidates your claim
that there is no evidence for evolution.
>Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's
> idea of creation.
Not really, except in the sense that the Bible can be interpeted to mean
whatever you want.
>Does that mean creation is true too?
What does the rest of the evidence say...... oooh ,I'm sorry, you don't have
any other evidence that supports your belief.
> It could be
> either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so
> it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact.
> That's bad science.
It's "fact" when it's been established beyond a reasonable doubt. "Bad
Science" is when someone tries to ignore evidence that contradicts that
person's religous belief. There is a great deal of evidence that
contradicts the Bible. There is no evidence that contradicts evolutionary
theory.
>
>
> > Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
> > http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
> >
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
> > tion.html
> > http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
> > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
>
>
> I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal
> issue.
IOW, your creationist source doesn't have an answer for this one.
Biogeography shows that ancient woodland apes lived in Africa, at the right
time and place to be the ancestors of humans. If the fossil record showed
humans appearing suddenly, and without any ancestors, then that would be
evidence against evolutionary theory. Biogeography shows that human
ancestors lived in the right time and place to support the theory that they
evolved from apes that lived at that time.
>
>
> > And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic similarity:
> > http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
> > http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
> > http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
> > http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
>
>
> Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities.
> There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic
> similarity.
Such as? Perhaps you feel the Creator had a perverse sense of humor. Why
does the anatomical evidence match closely with the genetic evidence? Why
isn't our closest genetic match something completely different from an ape?
If a Creator wanted to show that humans and apes are not related, why plant
such obvious evidence to the contrary?
> The design explanation deals with the issue much better.
The "design explanation" doesn't deal with the issue, it's just a baseless
claim that anything we see is the Creator's whim. Since it can explain
anything, it explains nothing.
> So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.
It's another fact that supports the theory.
>
>
> > > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> > > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
> >
> > Or perhaps they will show you the evidence. I provided 16 websites with
> > evidence for evolution. These only scratch the surface of what is
> > available. There are also thousands of journal articles, hundreds of
books,
> > tons of fossils, etc. all of which support evolution.
>
>
> Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man
> from ape-animals a fact.
So, you admit your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is false.
Thanks for the admission. Man from ape evolution is as close to a fact as
any scientific idea can be. You may not want to admit this, but the
evidence tells you that you are wrong.
> Not by any stretch of the imagination. I
> still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma.
Whoa, you just said a few lines ago "some evidence may support evolution".
Now you claim you "see no evidence"... Which is it?
> What would I
> expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?
>
> * No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
We have specimens of over 300 individual homonid fossils, over 5 million
years of time, clearly connecting humans to 'animal ancestor's.
> * No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
We have "man made", artifacts going back at least as far as 1.5 million
years.
> * No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
We have cave paintings, and other rock carvings going back at least 40,000
years
> * Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
Writing wasn't necessary until humans began agriculture, and established
towns and cities, so it's not surprising that it doesn't appear until fairly
recently. The earliest writing is dated to 5,500 years ago. According to
Biblical timelines, how many people were on earth at that time?
> * Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000
> years ago to now.
Again, one doesn't expect to find large buildings and structures before the
invention of agriculture. The earliest buildings date from 6500 years ago,
about 500 years too early for you. However hearths and other signs of human
habitation go back much farther, back to almost 2 million years old.
> * Lots of evidence for intelligent man back until about 6000 years ago
> where it comes to a sudden stop.
Evidence for intelligent humans goes back much farther than that, to around
50,000 years. Evidence of anatomically modern humans goes back over
150,000 years.
>
> Funny how the real world matches the Bible so perfectly.
If being off by a factor of thousands is "matches perfectly", I guess so.
DJT
AC
> "AC" <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnb89e4t.hbr...@ts1.alberni.net...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy
> wrote:
> [...]
>> > The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
>> > people.
>
> That's just bad etymology. You can't get "legion" from "ligion", it just
> doesn't work that way.
>
<snip>
I'm enjoying this immensely, but make sure you get the attributions right.
I wouldn't want to be confused with the deceptions and incompetence of Mr.
McCoy. I can't wait to see what sorts of evasions or lies he has waiting so
he can defend himself. Or perhaps he will just pretend that the posts
proving his etymology is pure BS don't exist.
Mike the Vike
From the level of denial displayed in these non-responss and garbled facts,
I say that the Now Here Man has crossed the line to the Boatwright Zone.
This is a definite troll. He has been led to water and refuses to sniff the
water let alone drink it. "It isn't water," he says.
Steven J.
>
> > There is the ever popular fossil evidence:
> > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> > http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
>
>
> Are you really serious? Now how can anyone tell the difference between
> a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape? Humans
> come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of
> evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls?
> Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to
> forge?
>
tell living humans from living apes (and I assume you believe this is
possible). In point of fact, the nonpathological variation among
living humans is rather limited (although very striking to us), and
even Neanderthals lie well outside that range. So does _Homo
erectus_, although going strictly by brain size, the largest _erectus_
brains overlap in size the smallest _sapiens_. The brain size of _H.
habilis_ does not overlap ours -- but *does* overlap that of _H.
erectus_. Again, you need to consider a range of skull features.
As for the bodies, bits and pieces are found -- a femur here, some
foot bones there, half the pieces of a skeleton in a couple of places.
If you look at the photos, you'll see that even the skulls are
recovered in pieces, and that some pieces are missing. In general,
vertebrate paleontologists regard skulls as very informative, compared
to any similar-sized portion of postcranial anatomy, so special
emphasis is placed on recovered hominid skull fragments. When bones
that don't include skull fragments are recovered, it can be hard to
tell anything about the organism except that it was a hominin of some
kind.
>
> Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's
> Word the Bible? Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were
> connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were
> just a few strange skulls? If you don't start with the assumption of
> the evolution dogma the answer is clear.
>
Given the vast array of interpretations of the Bible, including some
that even creationists generally reject today (e.g. the flat earth,
the geocentric universe, every predicted date for the return of Christ
to date, etc.), but which seemed obvious to their proponents, I'd
think even you could grasp that your *interpretation* of the Bible
might be wrong.
It seems to me that if you don't start with the assumption that common
descent must be false, the existence of skulls that *must* be either
human or nonhuman apes, but which defy unambiguous placement in either
category, would be enough to make the fact of evolution clear.
>
> > Then there is the molecular evidence
> > http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
> > http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
> > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
>
>
> Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with
> evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought
> (somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life
> form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page
> which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is
> humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.
>
If "a page of figures ... means nothing to [you]," then strictly
speaking you don't *know* it's not evidence. "Evidence" is not
limited to the extent of your own willingness to learn and think about
the facts. Of course, I suppose it might not be evidence to *you* --
perhaps the unnamed evolutionists who allegedly told you that you
would never understand the evidence were right.
>
> > Then there is the anatomical evidence
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> > http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
> > http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
> > tm
>
>
> Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with
> various animal species we must have came from animals! We look
> somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape! So
> if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came
> from something like a dog or a cow.
>
They would say that we came from a common ancestor with dogs and cows,
an ancestor that lived around 70 million years ago and rather
resembled modern insectivores and tree shrews. And if there were no
monkeys or apes, then they would point to lemurs and bushbabies as our
closest relatives, although the resemblence is less impressive than
that of apes.
It's not just the similarities that suggest comon descent, it's the
pattern of similarities and differences -- the pattern of "similar
designs for dissimilar functions (e.g. why should bat wings and whale
flippers be so bone-for-bone similar to human arms and hands), and
dissimilar designs for similar functions (e.g. why should bat wings be
*less* bone-for-bone similar to bird wings and pterosaur wings than to
whale flippers)." The first argues against *intelligent* design
(where's the intelligence in jury-rigging a biped like humans from the
quadrupedal design of apes?); the latter against *common* design
(since the designs are not, in fact, common).
>
> So anatomical similarities fit your idea of evolution. Big deal. That
> doesn't make your idea true. Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's
> idea of creation. Does that mean creation is true too? It could be
> either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so
> it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact.
> That's bad science.
>
Why do anatomical similarities fit the Bible's idea of creation? Is
there an pattern of similarities and differences that would *not* fit
the Bible's idea of creation? Modern creationism makes no testable
predictions; the young-earth creationists generally say that no
possible evidence could show that anything in Genesis was false (which
is to say that Genesis says NOTHING about what evidence we should
expect), while intelligent design advocates tell us that we can know
nothing about the Designer's goals or methods in designing life.
In contrast, common descent makes predictions about what the evidence
should look like. If humans, chimps, and baboons share a pseudogene
or endogenous retrovirus, we would expect that gorillas and gibbons
would possess the same ERV or pseudogene. We would not expect, if
evolution is true, to find creatures like mermaids, centaurs, or
similar violations of the nested hierarchy of life. It is possible to
test such predictions, and passing such tests gives us increasingly
strong reason to accept the theory.
>
> > Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
> > http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
> > http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
> > tion.html
> > http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
> > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
>
> I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal
> issue.
>
It is rather interesting that the oldest and most ape-like hominins
are all found in Africa, while studies of human genetics suggests that
the greatest human diversity (and therefore the oldest human
populations) is also in Africa, and the oldest fossils of _Homo
sapiens sapiens_ (modern humans) are also in Africa. One might
suppose, on creationist assumptions, that all those different erect
ape species might have ended up, like their fellow primates the New
World monkeys, in the Americas as easily as in Africa. In contrast,
on evolutionist assumptions, it seems very likely that the earliest
humans lived in the same general area as the prehuman ancestors from
which they evolved.
>
> > And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic similarity:
> > http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
> > http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
> > http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
> > http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
>
> Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities.
> There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic
> similarity. The design explanation deals with the issue much better.
> So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.
>
How does the design "explanation" deal with the issue?
"TheDesignerdidit" is not an explanation; an explanation tells you why
the facts are the way they are, rather than any of many imaginable
other ways they might be. But the Designer, as the ID proponents tell
us, might have designed the evidence any possible way; unlike
evolutionary theory, "design" predicts nothing and cannot be tested.
I think that by "it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact,"
you meant that it's not "evidence" unless we just assume that it means
something, which is merely dull and commonplace epistomological
nihilism.
>
> > > They will say things like, Oh no it's all very complicated, you have
> > > to be a biologist for 10 years to really understand.
> >
> > Or perhaps they will show you the evidence. I provided 16 websites with
> > evidence for evolution. These only scratch the surface of what is
> > available. There are also thousands of journal articles, hundreds of books,
> > tons of fossils, etc. all of which support evolution.
>
>
> Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man
> from ape-animals a fact. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I
> still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma. What would I
> expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?
>
> * No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
>
Then you would not expect to see _Homo erectus_ or _Homo habilis_ or
the australopithecines.
>
> * No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
>
Then you would not expect to see ruins in central Turkey that are more
than 10,000 years old, much less cave paintings and decorated tools
30,000 years old, or cruder stone tools up to a couple of million
years old.
>
> * No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
>
Well, in the interior Papua New Guinea all the writings are less than
100 years old, so I suppose the people there must be a very recent
creation indeed. Northern Europeans are a much older group of humans
-- their oldest writings are almost 2000 years old (yet some insist
they existed before then). Some have gone so far as to suggest that
human populations can survive indefinitely without inventing writing,
if they don't have agriculture and bureaucrats to keep track of crops
and taxes.
>
> * Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
>
And yet, as noted, there are human populations that were as human as
you and I, yet totally illiterate until the 20th century. It's almost
as though writing were not a necessary consequence of human
intelligence.
>
> * Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000
> years ago to now.
>
Again, there are indications of buildings in many parts of the world
that are more than 10,000 years old -- just remains of wooden support
posts and the like, of course, not brick walls and stone, but still
buildings. Again, in many parts of the world, permanent stone
structures are a quite recent innovation.
>
> * Lots of evidence for intelligent man back until about 6000 years ago
> where it comes to a sudden stop.
>
Then you would not expect to find, as noted, human artifacts and
paintings that are two or three hundred centuries old. Nor would you
expect to find skulls of modern-type humans that are ten times older
yet.
>
> Funny how the real world matches the Bible so perfectly.
>
For certain values of "real world" and "matches perfectly."
>
> Nowhere Man
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> Doug Haxton <dlha...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<opr88voo0v5uamsgs...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> > wrote:
>
>
> > >The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> > >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> >
> > Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
> > Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
>
> I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
> know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
>
hereditary traits. That is why Linnaeus's attempt to classify minerals
in the same nested hierarchy as living things did not succeed, and did
not survive to influence modern taxomomical systems. Rocks do not
have relatives. For that matter, very few rocks match the hardness of
human bones; a few are softer, and most are much harder.
>
> But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
> That's a whale of a tale.
>
of whales are hippopotamuses. And of course both are modifed forms of
an artiodactyl common ancestor that looked more like _Pakicetus_ than
like either a modern whale or hippo (although _Pakicetus_ was already
modified in the whale direction and was *not* itself a candidate for
common ancestor of whales and hippos).
>
> J McCoy
>
>
>
> >
> > Doug
-- Steven J.
Nowhere Man
Gee I wonder if evolution supporters like Arby's curly fries.
Nowhere Man
[Place your own Beatles joke here]
Nowhere Man
> > "Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > snipping a lot of verbage
> > >
> > >
> > > > There's no denying that claim! Not only do evolutionists believe this,
> > > > they say it's a fact! Now I give all the evolutionists the opportunity
> > > > to provide proof - even mildly persuasive evidence - that this is a
> > > > fact. Everyone reading will be able watch as evolutionists quietly
> > > > hide in the corners unable to provide any serious evidence to support
> > > > their claim as fact.
> > >
> > > What evidence would you like to see?
> >
> >
> > Any evidence would be nice. I've taken the time to carefully examine
> > your online articles.
>
> carefully examined all those sites.
I am a fast reader.
> > There is the ever popular fossil
> > > evidence:
> > > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> > > http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > > http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
> >
> >
> > Are you really serious?
>
> Yes, I am serious.
>
>
> > Now how can anyone tell the difference between
> > a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape?
>
> Good question. One would think that God would have made us a great deal
> more dissimilar to apes, if we were a entirely separate creation.
It must be a good question because you didn't answer it. Here is another
question. Why would God need to bother convincing us we are a separate creation?
He plainly states it in the Bible.
> > Humans
> > come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of
> > evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls?
>
> Due to the nature of fossilization and the habitat where ancient homonids
> lived, it's not likely that a lot of post crainal material will be found.
> That being said, there does exist a good deal of post cranial material in
> human fossils. The famous "Lucy" fossil is 40% complete. The Turkana Boy
> fossil of H. erectus is more than 80% complete.
Maybe you could help me understand better the nature of fossilization that keeps
the rest of the body from fossilizing.
> > Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to
> > forge?
>
> What evidence do you have for this rather serious accusation? Don't want to
> be bearing false witness, do you?
There was no accusation. Some fossils have been faked by evolutionists when the
fossil record would not show them what they wanted. So I was wondering what
explanation there was for the lack of fossilization.
> > Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's
> > Word the Bible?
>
> Absolutely. The earth is not flat. Rabbits don't chew thier cud. Pi does
> not = 3. There are many other examples where the Bible and reality are at
> odds.
Where does the Bible specifically say the earth is flat? Where does the Bible
specifically say rabbits chew their cud? Where does the Bible specifically say
Pi = 3? What IS Pi equal to? Now you're not making these things up are you?
> >Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were
> > connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were
> > just a few strange skulls?
>
> Those "strange skulls" are in exactly the right time and place for them to
> be intermediate between apes and humans. They make a finely graduated
> sequence of fossil evidence linking humans with non human primate ancestors.
> There are more than just a "few strange skulls", but the remains over over
> 300 individuals over 5 million years. They also are consistent with the
> evidence from the other fields of study. You can't just dismiss this
> evidence with a wave of your hand.
Describe one fossil older than 10,000 years that you believe is human. Then
explain how you know it's a human fossil and not a variant ape fossil?
> >If you don't start with the assumption of
> > the evolution dogma the answer is clear.
>
> Evolution is not an assumption, it's a scientific theory.
And people claim parts of the theory are fact that really have no supporting
evidence. That's the dogma. Then they claim their dogma is true by assuming it's
true.
> > > Then there is the molecular evidence
> > > http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
> > >
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
> > > http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
> > > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
> >
> >
> > Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with
> > evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought
> > (somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life
> > form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page
> > which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is
> > humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.
>
> So, you simply wave away this evidence, because you can't understand it.
> Denial is not a point of view.
I showed you what I understood from each page and why it was not evidence for
me. There was no denial. If the pages were relevant to the topic then I could
not see how.
> > > Then there is the anatomical evidence
> > >
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> > > http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
> > >
> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
> > > tm
> >
> >
> > Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with
> > various animal species we must have came from animals!
>
> Yes, what other explanation makes any sense? Why do we resemble some
> animals more than others? Why do we share certian anatomical similarities,
> unless we are related to other animals?
If being related means having similarities then of course we are related to
apes, dogs, fish, water, and dirt. That does not mean we evolved from apes,
dogs, fish, water, or dirt through evolution's "all doing" mechanisms.
> >We look
> > somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape!
>
> We look more like apes than any other animal group. Are you suggesting that
> is merely co-incidence? Not only do we look like apes, we have the same
> bone structure, genetic structre, and biochemical structure as apes. Why
> would this be, unless we were related to apes?
Once again, if being related means having similarities then of course we are.
But it's not a coincidence, we were obviously designed using much the same code
that apes use.
> >So
> > if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came
> > from something like a dog or a cow.
>
> What makes you so sure? Humans share more anatomical similiarities with
> dogs than we do cows. We share more anatomical similarities with cows than
> we do snakes, We share more anatomical similarities with snakes than we do
> with frogs, and so on..... What explanation do you have for this?
Perhaps they were created that way. Perhaps they evolved that way. Perhaps a
little of both. How should I know? That's for the real scientists to figure out.
But it's not a fact the all life forms evolved through mutations and selections
from one life form. There is simply not enough evidence from every single life
form on earth to say such a thing. The same with humans. There is no real
evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years. If there is, I have not seen
it. And I don't know it's being hidden so very well.
> > That
> > doesn't make your idea true.
>
> It's strong evidence that suggests it's true. It invalidates your claim
> that there is no evidence for evolution.
I never claimed that. You made that up.
> >Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's
> > idea of creation.
>
> Not really, except in the sense that the Bible can be interpeted to mean
> whatever you want.
How do they not fit the Bible's idea of creation?
> >Does that mean creation is true too?
>
> What does the rest of the evidence say...... oooh ,I'm sorry, you don't have
> any other evidence that supports your belief.
There's lots of evidence to support my beliefs and you know it. You are probably
just fooling yourself so that you don't have to be accountable. God knows
whether or not you've seen the evidence that is plain for all to see.
> > It could be
> > either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so
> > it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact.
> > That's bad science.
>
> It's "fact" when it's been established beyond a reasonable doubt. "Bad
> Science" is when someone tries to ignore evidence that contradicts that
> person's religous belief. There is a great deal of evidence that
> contradicts the Bible. There is no evidence that contradicts evolutionary
> theory.
And there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible.
> > > Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
> > > http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
> > >
> http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
> > > tion.html
> > > http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
> > > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
> >
> >
> > I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal
> > issue.
>
> IOW, your creationist source doesn't have an answer for this one.
>
> Biogeography shows that ancient woodland apes lived in Africa, at the right
> time and place to be the ancestors of humans. If the fossil record showed
> humans appearing suddenly, and without any ancestors, then that would be
> evidence against evolutionary theory. Biogeography shows that human
> ancestors lived in the right time and place to support the theory that they
> evolved from apes that lived at that time.
Refer to my challenge above.
> > > And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic similarity:
> > > http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
> > > http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
> > > http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
> > > http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
> >
> >
> > Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities.
> > There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic
> > similarity.
>
> Such as? Perhaps you feel the Creator had a perverse sense of humor. Why
> does the anatomical evidence match closely with the genetic evidence? Why
> isn't our closest genetic match something completely different from an ape?
> If a Creator wanted to show that humans and apes are not related, why plant
> such obvious evidence to the contrary?
Once again, if being related means having similarities then of course we are.
Similarities pose no threat to the teachings in the Bible.
> > The design explanation deals with the issue much better.
>
> The "design explanation" doesn't deal with the issue, it's just a baseless
> claim that anything we see is the Creator's whim. Since it can explain
> anything, it explains nothing.
>
> > So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.
>
> It's another fact that supports the theory.
When you chop my paragraphs up you are apparently loosing the overall theme of
logic. Lots of crazy explanations can go with a group of facts. That does not
mean they are all true. That does not even mean that any of them are true. But
the best of the explanations is the one that is the least crazy.
Secondly, a theory can not be fact. The theory of evolution itself can not be
called a fact. It will always be an explanation. The problem with the theory of
evolution is that some of its explanations could be true but others can't.
> > Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man
> > from ape-animals a fact.
>
> So, you admit your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is false.
> Thanks for the admission. Man from ape evolution is as close to a fact as
> any scientific idea can be. You may not want to admit this, but the
> evidence tells you that you are wrong.
I never made that claim. You are making things up again. That's bad discussion.
> > Not by any stretch of the imagination. I
> > still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma.
>
> Whoa, you just said a few lines ago "some evidence may support evolution".
> Now you claim you "see no evidence"... Which is it?
It must be a compulsive habit for you evolutionists to twist things around.
There IS some evidence that matches evolution theory. I also SEE NO evidence for
the dogma of evolutionists. Dogma like man from ape-animals.
> > What would I
> > expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?
> >
> > * No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
>
> We have specimens of over 300 individual homonid fossils, over 5 million
> years of time, clearly connecting humans to 'animal ancestor's.
I'll be waiting for you to meet my challenge above.
> > * No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
>
> We have "man made", artifacts going back at least as far as 1.5 million
> years.
Please point out one artifact that is clearly man-made and clearly older than
10,000 years.
> > * No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
>
> We have cave paintings, and other rock carvings going back at least 40,000
> years
Please point out one cave painting or rock carving that is older than 10,000
years and explain how you know it is older than 10,000 years.
> > * Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
>
> Writing wasn't necessary until humans began agriculture, and established
> towns and cities, so it's not surprising that it doesn't appear until fairly
> recently. The earliest writing is dated to 5,500 years ago. According to
> Biblical timelines, how many people were on earth at that time?
Quite a few. It's not surprising that writings do not appear until recently but
for different reasons than you state.
> > * Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000
> > years ago to now.
>
> Again, one doesn't expect to find large buildings and structures before the
> invention of agriculture. The earliest buildings date from 6500 years ago,
> about 500 years too early for you. However hearths and other signs of human
> habitation go back much farther, back to almost 2 million years old.
First, there is always margin for error in dating methods. Second, Bible
chronology is not totally precise. There may be gaps that allow for thousands of
years of difference but certainly not tens of thousands of years. So this
matches the Bible just fine.
Nowhere Man
Nowhere Man
If you two are so curious maybe you should try reading the Bible.
Nowhere Man
Dana Tweedy
Or, more likely you simply skimmed the sites, if you even visited them at
all.
>
>
> > > There is the ever popular fossil
> > > > evidence:
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> > > > http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/hominid.html
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > > > http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/default.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you really serious?
> >
> > Yes, I am serious.
> >
> >
> > > Now how can anyone tell the difference between
> > > a supposed "ape-like" animal and a strange shaped human or ape?
> >
> > Good question. One would think that God would have made us a great deal
> > more dissimilar to apes, if we were a entirely separate creation.
>
>
> It must be a good question because you didn't answer it.
Sorry, I didn't realize you needed that spelled out to you. Since humans
are "ape like animals", it's can be difficult to distinguish between an
ape-like animal and a human. Anatomists who have studied skulls of both
apes and humans can tell the distinguishing characteristics of both. One
feature for example is the shape of the palate. Humans have a more widened
U shaped palate than other apes. Other clues can be gathered from teeth and
cranial features. The farther you go back in history, the more difficult
it is to distinguish between ape like humans and human like apes. Before 5
million years, there is no way to distinguish human ancestors from other
apes. This exactly the pattern one expects to see with evolution.
> Here is another
> question. Why would God need to bother convincing us we are a separate
creation?
> He plainly states it in the Bible.
To be consistent with the writing in the Bible. The Bible says one thing,
but the physical evidence tells us another story. Why would God
deliberately create such confusion?
>
>
> > > Humans
> > > come in every imaginable shape and size today. There's plenty of
> > > evidence for that. And where are the bodies to these cobbled skulls?
> >
> > Due to the nature of fossilization and the habitat where ancient
homonids
> > lived, it's not likely that a lot of post crainal material will be
found.
> > That being said, there does exist a good deal of post cranial material
in
> > human fossils. The famous "Lucy" fossil is 40% complete. The Turkana
Boy
> > fossil of H. erectus is more than 80% complete.
>
>
> Maybe you could help me understand better the nature of fossilization that
keeps
> the rest of the body from fossilizing.
Since you claim to be a fast reader, let me point you to some websites that
discuss taphonomy.
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/abeisaw/Taphonomy.html
http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Taphonomy&Pres/taphonomy.htm
Simply put, ancient homonids lived on the savannah, where they were preyed
upon by predators, and any remains were dismembered by birds and mammal
scanvengers. The conditions on the savannah are not condusive to
fossilization in the first place, and any remains would tend to be
scattered. Skulls, being large and not containing much edible meat, would
tend not to be broken up and would tend to survive better than other hominid
bones. That's why its more likely to find skulls of ancient hominids than
the rest of the body. Until humans began burying their dead, ensuring
rapid burial, it's very unlikely that any of the post cranial bones will be
found.
Another factor, why skulls tend to be given more attention, is that the post
crainal skeleton of hominids hasn't changed a great deal in the last 5
million years. Skulls provide a great deal more information as to
development and physical change than any other part of the hominid anatomy.
>
>
> > > Were they mysteriously not fossilized or do they take too much time to
> > > forge?
> >
> > What evidence do you have for this rather serious accusation? Don't
want to
> > be bearing false witness, do you?
>
>
> There was no accusation.
Then why bring it up?
> Some fossils have been faked by evolutionists when the
> fossil record would not show them what they wanted.
Really? Can you give some examples? Note, if you are going to say
"Piltdown", please don't waste your time. Piltdown was a hoax, by unknown
person or persons. It was most likely intended to either embarass
scientists, or to get attention for an amatuer fossil collector. It was
not created to "prove" evolution. If you other example is "Nebraska Man",
please note that was an honest mistake, which was quickly corrected and
retracted.
> So I was wondering what
> explanation there was for the lack of fossilization.
See above. Fossilization gives us an imperfect record, it's just the nature
of the process.
>
>
> > > Let's be reasonable. Could something be true if it contradicted God's
> > > Word the Bible?
> >
> > Absolutely. The earth is not flat. Rabbits don't chew thier cud. Pi
does
> > not = 3. There are many other examples where the Bible and reality are
at
> > odds.
>
>
> Where does the Bible specifically say the earth is flat?
Daniel 4:10-11.
Matthew 4:8
Isaiah 11:12
Job 38:13
>Where does the Bible
> specifically say rabbits chew their cud?
Leviticus 11:6
> Where does the Bible specifically say
> Pi = 3?
1 Kings 7:23
What IS Pi equal to?
3.14159etc.
>Now you're not making these things up are you?
Nope, all there.
>
>
> > >Which makes more sense. A few strange skulls were
> > > connections from humans to imaginary ape-animals or that they were
> > > just a few strange skulls?
> >
> > Those "strange skulls" are in exactly the right time and place for them
to
> > be intermediate between apes and humans. They make a finely graduated
> > sequence of fossil evidence linking humans with non human primate
ancestors.
> > There are more than just a "few strange skulls", but the remains over
over
> > 300 individuals over 5 million years. They also are consistent with the
> > evidence from the other fields of study. You can't just dismiss this
> > evidence with a wave of your hand.
>
>
> Describe one fossil older than 10,000 years that you believe is human.
Assuming you mean "anatomically modern humans", rather than other human
ancestors:
Cro Magnon. 30,000 years old.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
I'll give you a few more while I'm at it.
Florisbad , dated at 230,000 years:
http://sasap.freeservers.com/australopethicus/florisbad.html
Klasies River 125,000 years old.
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/A105/lectures/A105L22L23.html
>Then
> explain how you know it's a human fossil and not a variant ape fossil?
It has all the characteristic features of a modern human skull. BTW, since
humans are apes, any hominid fossil is a "vairant ape fossil".
>
>
> > >If you don't start with the assumption of
> > > the evolution dogma the answer is clear.
> >
> > Evolution is not an assumption, it's a scientific theory.
>
>
> And people claim parts of the theory are fact that really have no
supporting
> evidence.
Unfortunately for you, the supporting evidence does exist. Your personal
denial doesn't make the evidence go away.
> That's the dogma. Then they claim their dogma is true by assuming it's
> true.
Yet, science doesn't 'assume' that evolution is true. It's all based on
solid evidence.
>
>
> > > > Then there is the molecular evidence
> > > > http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/dmm/humgen/additional%20data/se&ghal.htm
> > > >
> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/elaborate_a.html
> > > > http://www.2think.org/pie.shtml
> > > > http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok we have a page of figures that means nothing to me, a page with
> > > evolutionists claiming evolution is simpler than scientists thought
> > > (somehow that's supposed to support that we all evolved from one life
> > > form... very misguided), a page to a book I don't have, and a page
> > > which focuses on all evolution but not the topic at hand. Which is
> > > humans from ape-like animals. So no evidence here.
> >
> > So, you simply wave away this evidence, because you can't understand it.
> > Denial is not a point of view.
>
>
> I showed you what I understood from each page and why it was not evidence
for
> me. There was no denial. If the pages were relevant to the topic then I
could
> not see how.
Your personal ignorance of the information doesn't make it less evidence.
You simply dismissed what you didn't understand, and tried to wave away what
you did. That's denial, plain and simple.
>
>
> > > > Then there is the anatomical evidence
> > > >
> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/explain_c.html
> > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> > > > http://www.answersinscience.org/evolution.html
> > > >
> >
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence07.h
> > > > tm
> > >
> > >
> > > Basically the arguement goes, because we share similarities with
> > > various animal species we must have came from animals!
> >
> > Yes, what other explanation makes any sense? Why do we resemble some
> > animals more than others? Why do we share certian anatomical
similarities,
> > unless we are related to other animals?
>
>
> If being related means having similarities then of course we are related
to
> apes, dogs, fish, water, and dirt. That does not mean we evolved from
apes,
> dogs, fish, water, or dirt through evolution's "all doing" mechanisms.
It's not simply a matter of having similiarities, but having a specific
pattern of similarities. Those patterns are explained by common descent.
Evolution doesn't claim an "all doing" mechanism. The mechanism is
specific, and well established. We are quite aware of what evolutionary
mechanisms can and cannot do.
>
>
> > >We look
> > > somewhat like apes so we must have came from something like an ape!
> >
> > We look more like apes than any other animal group. Are you suggesting
that
> > is merely co-incidence? Not only do we look like apes, we have the same
> > bone structure, genetic structre, and biochemical structure as apes.
Why
> > would this be, unless we were related to apes?
>
>
> Once again, if being related means having similarities then of course we
are.
> But it's not a coincidence, we were obviously designed using much the same
code
> that apes use.
Why would that be? Why did God make us 98% ape? To what purpose?
>
>
> > >So
> > > if there were no apes and monkeys evolutionists would just say we came
> > > from something like a dog or a cow.
> >
> > What makes you so sure? Humans share more anatomical similiarities
with
> > dogs than we do cows. We share more anatomical similarities with cows
than
> > we do snakes, We share more anatomical similarities with snakes than we
do
> > with frogs, and so on..... What explanation do you have for this?
>
>
> Perhaps they were created that way. Perhaps they evolved that way.
Since no one has ever observed anyone being created, and there is no
scientific way of studying the mechanism of creation, why should we accept
the former? Since evolution has been observed, and it can be observed and
tested, which is more suitable for presentation in a science classroom?
> Perhaps a
> little of both. How should I know?
If you don't know, then why are you opposing the concept?
>That's for the real scientists to figure out.
They have figured it out. Life evolved.
> But it's not a fact the all life forms evolved through mutations and
selections
> from one life form. There is simply not enough evidence from every single
life
> form on earth to say such a thing.
There is plenty of evidence to be able to make that inference.
> The same with humans. There is no real
> evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years. If there is, I have not
seen
> it. And I don't know it's being hidden so very well.
How odd. I have given you, on a silver platter so to speak, exactly that
evidence. You simply waived it away. Could it be you simply aren't willing
to accept what the evidence is telling you? Claiming there is no evidence
simply doesn't work. You have already admitted there IS evidence. Any
claim otherwise means you are lying , if only to yourself.
>
>
> > > That
> > > doesn't make your idea true.
> >
> > It's strong evidence that suggests it's true. It invalidates your claim
> > that there is no evidence for evolution.
>
>
> I never claimed that. You made that up.
No, look above. You repeated your claim.
"There is no real
evidence that we're older than roughly 6000 years. If there is, I have not
seen
it. And I don't know it's being hidden so very well"
I don't have to make anything up, you are damning yourself with you own
words.
>
>
> > >Anatomical similarities fit the Bible's
> > > idea of creation.
> >
> > Not really, except in the sense that the Bible can be interpeted to mean
> > whatever you want.
>
>
> How do they not fit the Bible's idea of creation?
Anything can be made to "fit" the Bible's idea of creation. That's why it's
useless as a scientific concept.
>
>
> > >Does that mean creation is true too?
> >
> > What does the rest of the evidence say...... oooh ,I'm sorry, you don't
have
> > any other evidence that supports your belief.
>
>
> There's lots of evidence to support my beliefs and you know it.
Then perhaps you could share.
> You are probably
> just fooling yourself so that you don't have to be accountable. God knows
> whether or not you've seen the evidence that is plain for all to see.
Are you aware of the psychological term "projection"? It means you are
projecting your own faults on others. I suspect you know that you are
attempting to fool yourself, so you won't have to admit that you are wrong.
You have seen the evidence for evolution, and you refuse to accept it. Why?
>
>
> > > It could be
> > > either one or something different altogether. You don't know which so
> > > it's nothing like a fact. It's only a fact if you assume it's fact.
> > > That's bad science.
> >
> > It's "fact" when it's been established beyond a reasonable doubt. "Bad
> > Science" is when someone tries to ignore evidence that contradicts that
> > person's religous belief. There is a great deal of evidence that
> > contradicts the Bible. There is no evidence that contradicts
evolutionary
> > theory.
>
>
> And there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible.
There is quite a lot of evidence that contradicts the Bible. Your denial
of that evidence doesn't make it go away.
>
>
> > > > Not to mention the evidence from biogeography:
> > > > http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
> > > >
> >
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribu
> > > > tion.html
> > > > http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution2.html
> > > > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/biogeography.html
> > >
> > >
> > > I fail to see how biogeography sheds light on the man from ape-animal
> > > issue.
> >
> > IOW, your creationist source doesn't have an answer for this one.
> >
> > Biogeography shows that ancient woodland apes lived in Africa, at the
right
> > time and place to be the ancestors of humans. If the fossil record
showed
> > humans appearing suddenly, and without any ancestors, then that would be
> > evidence against evolutionary theory. Biogeography shows that human
> > ancestors lived in the right time and place to support the theory that
they
> > evolved from apes that lived at that time.
>
>
> Refer to my challenge above.
What "challenge" is that? Why isn't the evidence for biogeography
evidence for evolution?
>
>
> > > > And while we're at it, how about some evidence from genetic
similarity:
> > > > http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic3.htm
> > > > http://sunsite.wits.ac.za/focus/origins.htm
> > > > http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html
> > > > http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Here you face the same problem with comparing anatomical similarities.
> > > There's plenty of other explanations that deal with genetic
> > > similarity.
> >
> > Such as? Perhaps you feel the Creator had a perverse sense of humor.
Why
> > does the anatomical evidence match closely with the genetic evidence?
Why
> > isn't our closest genetic match something completely different from an
ape?
> > If a Creator wanted to show that humans and apes are not related, why
plant
> > such obvious evidence to the contrary?
>
>
> Once again, if being related means having similarities then of course we
are.
> Similarities pose no threat to the teachings in the Bible.
I'm not threatneing the teachings of the Bible. I'm showing you evidence
for evolutionary theory. Again, why do the anatomical similiarities match
the genetic similiarities, if not for common descent?
>
>
> > > The design explanation deals with the issue much better.
> >
> > The "design explanation" doesn't deal with the issue, it's just a
baseless
> > claim that anything we see is the Creator's whim. Since it can explain
> > anything, it explains nothing.
> >
> > > So it's not a fact unless you just assume it's a fact.
> >
> > It's another fact that supports the theory.
>
>
> When you chop my paragraphs up you are apparently loosing the overall
theme of
> logic.
It's called "point by point rebuttal". I was not aware that your
paragraphs contained any theme of logic.
>Lots of crazy explanations can go with a group of facts. That does not
> mean they are all true. That does not even mean that any of them are true.
But
> the best of the explanations is the one that is the least crazy.
"Lots of crazy explanations" are what we can expect from Creationists.
Evolution is a very simple explanation for a group of observations. There
are many possible explanations, but only evolution fits all the evidence,
and explains the evidence as well.
>
> Secondly, a theory can not be fact. The theory of evolution itself can not
be
> called a fact. It will always be an explanation. The problem with the
theory of
> evolution is that some of its explanations could be true but others can't.
What explanations of evolution"can't" be true? BTW, all scientific
theories are provisional, and are always open to revision as new evidence is
gathered. Facts are what theories are made of. However evolution as a
theory is so well established, that it would be perverse to withhold
acceptance. It can, for all practical purposes be called a "fact".
>
>
> > > Some evidence may support evolution but it certainly does not make man
> > > from ape-animals a fact.
> >
> > So, you admit your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is
false.
> > Thanks for the admission. Man from ape evolution is as close to a fact
as
> > any scientific idea can be. You may not want to admit this, but the
> > evidence tells you that you are wrong.
>
>
> I never made that claim. You are making things up again. That's bad
discussion.
No, I am just pointing out your errors. You claimed that there was no
evidence for evolution. That claim is false. You admitted that claim was
false.
>
>
> > > Not by any stretch of the imagination. I
> > > still see no evidence supporting this peice of dogma.
> >
> > Whoa, you just said a few lines ago "some evidence may support
evolution".
> > Now you claim you "see no evidence"... Which is it?
>
>
> It must be a compulsive habit for you evolutionists to twist things
around.
No twisting necessary. That is exactly what you said. please read your own
words.
> There IS some evidence that matches evolution theory. I also SEE NO
evidence for
> the dogma of evolutionists. Dogma like man from ape-animals.
Again, you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If there is
evidence for evolution, you can't then claim there is no evidence. The
evolution of human beings from non human ancestors is not a "dogma" but a
inference from the evidence. There is plenty of evidence for that
inference, from such fields as genetics, molecular biology, fossil, and
anatomical data. Declaring it "dogma" is an attempt to deny the evidence.
>
>
> > > What would I
> > > expect to see if humans were separately created about 6000 years ago?
> > >
> > > * No fossil evidence connecting modern man to any animal anscestor.
> >
> > We have specimens of over 300 individual homonid fossils, over 5
million
> > years of time, clearly connecting humans to 'animal ancestor's.
>
>
> I'll be waiting for you to meet my challenge above.
What "challenge"? I didn't see you issue any challenge.
>
>
> > > * No man made artifacts or buildings older than about 6000 years.
> >
> > We have "man made", artifacts going back at least as far as 1.5 million
> > years.
>
>
> Please point out one artifact that is clearly man-made and clearly older
than
> 10,000 years.
http://www.saltspring.com/art/flintman/
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~pwilloug/research.htm
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~korea/stone_age_arts.html
These are just a few of the known stone age tools.
>
>
> > > * No writings that are older than about 6000 years.
> >
> > We have cave paintings, and other rock carvings going back at least
40,000
> > years
>
>
> Please point out one cave painting or rock carving that is older than
10,000
> years and explain how you know it is older than 10,000 years.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Prehistory/Altamira.html
The paintings have been dated by radiocarbon and other dating techniques.
>
>
> > > * Lots of writings from about 6000 years ago to now.
> >
> > Writing wasn't necessary until humans began agriculture, and established
> > towns and cities, so it's not surprising that it doesn't appear until
fairly
> > recently. The earliest writing is dated to 5,500 years ago. According
to
> > Biblical timelines, how many people were on earth at that time?
>
>
> Quite a few. It's not surprising that writings do not appear until
recently but
> for different reasons than you state.
What reasons do you suppose? Why would hunter gatherers need writing?
>
>
> > > * Lots of buildings and great man made structures from about 6000
> > > years ago to now.
> >
> > Again, one doesn't expect to find large buildings and structures before
the
> > invention of agriculture. The earliest buildings date from 6500 years
ago,
> > about 500 years too early for you. However hearths and other signs of
human
> > habitation go back much farther, back to almost 2 million years old.
>
>
> First, there is always margin for error in dating methods.
Not that much of an error.
> Second, Bible
> chronology is not totally precise.
Nor reliable at all.
> There may be gaps that allow for thousands of
> years of difference but certainly not tens of thousands of years. So this
> matches the Bible just fine.
How does 2 million year old hearths and pole structures fit your chronology?
DJT
Mark VandeWettering
>> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
"born". Past tense of "bear".
Can you spot the fallacies in your argument? There are at least two.
Mark
> Nowhere Man
J McCoy
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:34:22 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> wrote:
> >> >> We *are* animals. Indicate one human trait that isn't shared in some degree
> >> >> by at least one other anima;.
> >> >
> >> >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> >>
> >> Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
> >> Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
> >
> >I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> >believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
> >know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> >in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
> >
> >That's a whale of a tale.
>
> opportunity to ask you for the third time:
>
> You said that there are "untold stars" that are too far away to be
> seen.
>
> If we can't see them, how do you know that they're there?
>
> Doug
That's a good question. Probability. The more we've looked thus far,
the more we've found. Maybe there is a limit, but what I've suggested
is that we've don't know. But I do know that there are untold stars,
even if that means two. And that's a very reasonable assumption. We
know that we haven't counted all the stars yet. But my point is, is
that if we do not know how far the stars are, how can we say how old
the universe is, given the assumption of a big bang, which I I'm not
convinced of anyway.
Your thoughts?
J McCoy
Bigdakine
>From: "boikat" boi...@bellsouth.net
>Date: 3/28/03 12:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <yY3ha.297205$7%.119336@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>
>
>
>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:38c5d0dd.03032...@posting.google.com...
>> "Fross" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<y9SdnaY-8ZT...@comcast.com>...
>> > Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
>>
>> How do we know that man was created in God's image?
>>
>> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
>> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
>
>The Who?
>
Guess who?
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
stew dean
> One evasion tactic they use is to argue that if something is false
> then you should be able to prove it false. This thin reasoning is easy
> to see through. I will use the old Santa Clause example. If someone
> wants others to believe that Santa Clause is real, it is up to him to
> provide the evidence and proofs.
First - stop using the term 'they'. Unless you can define who 'they'
are you are just ranting against an undisclosed and overly generalised
enemy. Usualy these enemies turn out to be fictitous and or generally
nice guys if you have a beer with them. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Secondly you cannot prove a negative. What you can do is come up with
a more viable alternative. For example take the fact that kids wake up
with presents. Either there is a Santa Claus or the parents put the
present there them selves. It only takes a quick test (a quick CCTV
set up) to find out that parents are doing it having made the
hypothesis that the parents put the presents there.
No apply the same thinking to evolution - a more complex issue and not
directly observable in a human time scale. What you can do is model
evolution based on the hypothesis. If evolution is a duff concept is
shouldnt work and you shouldnt get individuals evolving. But you do.
See for yourself in this one example. I can provide more if you want.
http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html
Stew Dean
Pip R. Lagenta
(Bigdakine) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Evolutionist Dogma
>>From: "boikat" boi...@bellsouth.net
>>Date: 3/28/03 12:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <yY3ha.297205$7%.119336@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>
>>
>>
>>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:38c5d0dd.03032...@posting.google.com...
>>> "Fross" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<y9SdnaY-8ZT...@comcast.com>...
>>> > Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
>>>
>>> How do we know that man was created in God's image?
>>>
>>> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
>>> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
>>
>>The Who?
>>
>Guess who?
Yes
<http://www.rugratonline.com/rrfan51.htm>
John Wilkins
> In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man
> wrote:
>
> >> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
> >
> > If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> > witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
>
> "born". Past tense of "bear".
Borne...
>
> Can you spot the fallacies in your argument? There are at least two.
>
> Mark
>
> > Nowhere Man
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Wilkins
> >Subject: Re: Evolutionist Dogma
> >From: "boikat" boi...@bellsouth.net
> >Date: 3/28/03 12:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <yY3ha.297205$7%.119336@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>
> >
> >
> >"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:38c5d0dd.03032...@posting.google.com...
> >> "Fross" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:<y9SdnaY-8ZT...@comcast.com>...
> >> > Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
> >>
> >> How do we know that man was created in God's image?
> >>
> >> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
> >> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
> >
> >The Who?
> >
> Guess who?
>
Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?
I really wanna know...
[Coming soon... the 70's - Yes! Yes! Yes!]
stew dean
> > IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
>
That requires a signed statement from god. Closest we have is the
bible and that is written by humans alegidely guided by a god.
A god may not be able to lie but humans can.
Stew Dean
boikat
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:onva8vkfij0l4mjt1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:21:25 +0000 (UTC), bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Evolutionist Dogma
> >>From: "boikat" boi...@bellsouth.net
> >>Date: 3/28/03 12:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <yY3ha.297205$7%.119336@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:38c5d0dd.03032...@posting.google.com...
> >>> "Fross" <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:<y9SdnaY-8ZT...@comcast.com>...
> >>> > Nowhere man, please listen, you don't know what you're missin.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but I have to repeat this:
> >>>
> >>> How do we know that man was created in God's image?
> >>>
> >>> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
> >>> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
> >>
> >>The Who?
> >>
> >Guess who?
>
> Yes
From "Woodstock Slappy":
SLAPPY: Unfortunately, yes! Skippy, what is the name of that group playing
on stage?
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the group.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The group on stage.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The group playing on stage.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: You're starting to sound like an owl, Skippy.
SKIPPY: Who is on stage!
SLAPPY: That is what I'm askin' ya', Who is on stage.
SKIPPY: That's what I said.
SLAPPY: You said who?
SKIPPY: I sure did.
SLAPPY: So tell me the name.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the group.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The group on stage.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the band on stage!
SKIPPY: Who!
SLAPPY: You're doing that owl thing again, Skippy!
SKIPPY: I'm not, Aunt Slappy, I'm telling you Who is on stage.
SLAPPY: So tell me.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: So tell me.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the group.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The group on stage!
SKIPPY: Who!
SLAPPY: That's what I'm asking you!
SKIPPY: And I'm telling you the answer.
SLAPPY: Wait, Skippy, let's start over. Is there a band on stage?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Does the band have a name?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Do you know the name of the band?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Then tell me the name of the band on stage.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the band!
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The band, playing on stage!
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: That's what I want to know!
SKIPPY: I'm telling you!
SLAPPY: Who is on stage.
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Who is?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Oh. So the name of the band is Yes.
SKIPPY: No, Aunt Slappy, Yes is not even at this concert.
SLAPPY: Then who is on stage?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Who is?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: That's just what I said, Yes is on stage.
SKIPPY: No, Yes is not here. Who is on stage.
SLAPPY: Whaddya askin' me for?
SKIPPY: I'm not!
SLAPPY: Wait, let's try this again. Do you see the band on stage?
SKIPPY: No I don't see The Band, that's a different group entirely.
SLAPPY: On stage, Skippy. Look, see the band?
SKIPPY: No I don't.
SLAPPY: Get rid of those John Lennon glasses and look! There, there's the
band!
SKIPPY: No, that's not The Band. The Band is performing later on. Who's
on stage.
SLAPPY: You tell me.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the group on stage.
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The name of the group!
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The group on stage!
SKIPPY: Who.
SLAPPY: The band!
SKIPPY: No, The Band is performing later. Right now, we're listening to
Who.
SLAPPY: That's what I wanna know!!
<Cheering>
ROGER DALTRY: Hey, you squirrels are funny, man. Come on up here and take
a bow.
SKIPPY: Yeah! Far out!
SLAPPY: Oh brother....
{Humouresque}
SLAPPY: Yeah, yeah, OK. Thank you. Now everybody go home! Including you
guys, what's your name?
ROGER: Who.
SLAPPY: Don't start with me! Just get off the stage! The rest of you, go!
<More cheering>
SLAPPY: Why aren't they leaving?
SKIPPY: They dig you, Aunt Slappy, man.
SLAPPY: Oh yeah? We'll see about that. I said leave!
[Smashing Jimi's guitar]
ROGER: Oh, very groovy, mates, isn't it, totally! \
>-together
PETE TOWNSHEND: Totally groovy. /
ROGER: We are The Who!
[Smashing insturments] <BOOM!>
ROGER: erg...
<Even more cheering>
SLAPPY: Yeesh! These kids would applaud my laundry! Why won't they take
a hike?
SKIPPY: They want more music.
SLAPPY: All right, then. They can have more music!
{Slappy's theme}
SLAPPY: Hey everybody! Let's polka!
"Uncle Yasha lost his shoe
It fell in a bog; he did too.
Uncle Schmeeda grabbed his foot
He jumped in the bog and went kaput."
[evacuation]
{Beethoven's 6th Symphony}
SLAPPY: Ah. Peace and quiet at last!
{Star Spangled Banner}
In the land of the free,
Now that's comedy!
.........
Boikat
Bobby D. Bryant
Glad to see you upholding the intellectual standards of your kind.
Joe Cummings
wrote:
John,
Your arguments are always a delight.
Tell me again, did you say you got your ideas from a Big
Orange Book, or a Big Orange Tablet?
By the way, if there are TWO stars, then they're "told." As an
expert etymologist you will know, of course, that "tell" means count
as well as "say."
Hence "teller."
Hurry up and write some more from your cornucopia of
scientific nonsense.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Dick C
> "Mike the Vike" <tui...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
> If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
Actually no. God made the world, and god inspired some men to
write the bible, according to christian theology. However, god
says little about how he did those things in the bible. But there
is a great amount of evidence in the world of how the world came
about. So what we are left with are some people who insist that
they know more than god about how god created the world.
It isn't god bearing false witness Glenn, it is people like you
who dare to tell god how he did things.
Mark VandeWettering
> That's a good question. Probability. The more we've looked thus far,
> the more we've found. Maybe there is a limit, but what I've suggested
> is that we've don't know. But I do know that there are untold stars,
> even if that means two. And that's a very reasonable assumption. We
> know that we haven't counted all the stars yet. But my point is, is
> that if we do not know how far the stars are, how can we say how old
> the universe is, given the assumption of a big bang, which I I'm not
> convinced of anyway.
>
> Your thoughts?
The universe is kind of like your ignorance and stupidity: every time
we think we've plumbed its limits, new mysteries await.
Mark
>
> J McCoy
>
AC
I spent the first fifteen years of my life in religious indoctrination and
have read the Bible from beginning to end. Please don't try to overawe me.
Save your breath for defending your lies and assertions.
Dana Tweedy
> >>> God has an inordinate fondness for beetles, while man has an
> >>> inordinate fondness for Beatles.
> >>
> >>The Who?
> >>
> >Guess who?
>
> Yes
Ah Ha!
DJT
Alan Morgan
J McCoy
Joe,
Your response presumes that I'm wrong but fails to say why. Joe, do
you believe that scientists know what the farthest star is?
J McCoy
Doug Haxton
wrote:
>> Since you've been kind enough to respond to me, Iet me take the
>> opportunity to ask you for the third time:
>>
>> You said that there are "untold stars" that are too far away to be
>> seen.
>>
>> If we can't see them, how do you know that they're there?
>>
>> Doug
>
>That's a good question. Probability. The more we've looked thus far,
>the more we've found. Maybe there is a limit, but what I've suggested
>is that we've don't know.
I suggest you Google the phrase, "Olbers' paradox". If there were an
infinite number of stars, the entire sky would be lit up as brightly
as the sun.
> But I do know that there are untold stars, even if that means two.
Um...two *doesn't* mean untold. It means 2.
> And that's a very reasonable assumption.
Based upon what? How do you know it?
>We know that we haven't counted all the stars yet.
Actually, astronomers have made estimates. Granted, they can't tell
*exactly* how many there are...nor will they ever be able to, given
that when you look at a galaxy a billion light years away, you're
looking a billion years into the past.
> But my point is, is that if we do not know how far the stars are,
Why in the world would you think that? There are methods by which
stellar distances can be measured. Granted, there's a margin of
error, but there's no reason to think that the methods used aren't
reasonably accurate.
>how can we say how old
>the universe is, given the assumption of a big bang, which I I'm not
>convinced of anyway.
Off the top of my head, there's the measurement of the 3 degree Kelvin
background radiation and the measured distances to the most distant
galaxies. The age of the oldest stars also correlates nicely.
Doug
J McCoy
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > Doug Haxton <dlha...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<opr88voo0v5uamsgs...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> > > wrote:
> >
> -- [snip]
> >
> > > >The we are rocks too, but the similarity of how hard our bones are.
> > > >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> > >
> > > Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
> > > Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
> >
> > I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> > believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
> > know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> > in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
> >
> Rocks do not possess or pass on through reproduction mutable
> hereditary traits. That is why Linnaeus's attempt to classify minerals
> in the same nested hierarchy as living things did not succeed, and did
> not survive to influence modern taxomomical systems. Rocks do not
> have relatives. For that matter, very few rocks match the hardness of
> human bones; a few are softer, and most are much harder.
> >
> > But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
> > That's a whale of a tale.
> >
> Actually, genetic evidence suggests that the closet living relatives
> of whales are hippopotamuses.
More nonsense.
And of course both are modifed forms of
> an artiodactyl common ancestor that looked more like _Pakicetus_ than
> like either a modern whale or hippo (although _Pakicetus_ was already
> modified in the whale direction and was *not* itself a candidate for
> common ancestor of whales and hippos).
It's amazing how much you can imagine and invent, given some greek and latin words.
J McCoy
J McCoy
> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> by at least one other anima;.
> >> >
> >> >Takes stupid ideas to create stupid arguments.
> >>
> >> Congratulations! This is the most absurd statement I've seen on the
> >> Usenet so far this year...and that's saying something.
> >
> > I agree with you. But I have to say, as a creationist, I do not
> > believe that we are related to rocks as evolutionists believe. You
> > know, millions of years of rain washing chemicals from the rocks and
> > in turn evolving into all kinds of creatures.
>
> purpose to absolutely discredit yourself?
>
> >
> > But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
> > That's a whale of a tale.
>
> naturally to you that it sounds like truth? Are you this way in every
> aspect of your life? Do you treat everyone and every subject with such an
> extraordinary lack of honor, decency and dignity
>
> The theory is that whales and cows have a common ancestor. I'm sure you
> aware of this, but the need to lie is so strong within you that you cannot
> resist spouting falsehood. And please, don't try to turn this around,
> because then I'm going to demand that you provide citations in peer-reviewed
> journals where biologists state that whales came from cows. And we both
> know very well that no biologists make that claim, and we both know that you
> are lying, so I would think now would be a good time for you to disengage.
Actually, during the Eighties the media circulated the idea that
scientists believe that whales came from cows.
J McCoy
catshark
wrote:
>AC <maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnb89kuq.kbm...@ts1.alberni.net>...
>> In article <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy wrote:
>> > Doug Haxton <dlha...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<opr88voo0v5uamsgs...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:00:52 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
>> >> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Your nonsense was already noted, do you need to compound it? Is it your
>> purpose to absolutely discredit yourself?
>>
>> >
>> > But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
>> > That's a whale of a tale.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to lie? Is lying just something that comes so
>> naturally to you that it sounds like truth? Are you this way in every
>> aspect of your life? Do you treat everyone and every subject with such an
>> extraordinary lack of honor, decency and dignity
>>
>> The theory is that whales and cows have a common ancestor. I'm sure you
>> aware of this, but the need to lie is so strong within you that you cannot
>> resist spouting falsehood. And please, don't try to turn this around,
>> because then I'm going to demand that you provide citations in peer-reviewed
>> journals where biologists state that whales came from cows. And we both
>> know very well that no biologists make that claim, and we both know that you
>> are lying, so I would think now would be a good time for you to disengage.
>
>Actually, during the Eighties the media circulated the idea that
>scientists believe that whales came from cows.
Be warned. This is what happens when you restrict yourself to getting
your information about science from _Jack and Jill_, _Boys' Life_ and
_Children's Digest_.
And, pray tell, McNameless, what difference whould it make if the
media was so silly as to say that?
Oh, wait . . . _Duane Gish_ is silly enough to say something like that
(and you are silly enough to misremember it as if _scientists_ were
saying it):
Every creationist book on my shelf actually cites the absence
of and inherent inconceivability of transitional forms between
terrestrial mammals and whales. Alan Haywood, for example,
writes in his Creation and Evolution [Haywood, Alan 1985.
Creation and Evolution. London: Triangle Books]:
Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents
them with one of their most insoluble problems. They
believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from
an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea
and lost its legs … A land mammal that was in the process
of becoming a whale would fall between two stools — it
would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would
have no hope for survival.
Duane Gish, creationism's most ardent debater, makes the same
argument in his more colorful style [Gish, Duane 1985. Evolution:
The Challenge of the Fossil Record. San Diego: Creation Life Pub-
lications]:
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record
between the marine mammals and there supposed land
mammal ancestors … It is quite entertaining, starting with
cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the
intermediates may have looked like. Starting with a cow,
one could even imagine one line of descent which pre-
maturely became extinct, due to what might be called an
"udder failure."
Gould, Stephen Jay 1995. Dinosaur in a Haystack. New York: Harmony
Books, p. 361-362.
See online at:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html
Have you ever considered turning pro? After all, Bozo retiring may
have opened up a spot.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.'
And God granted it.
- Voltaire -
catshark
wrote:
We appreciate your warning us about what is coming but, trust us, we
know what to expect when you post.
>
> And of course both are modifed forms of
>> an artiodactyl common ancestor that looked more like _Pakicetus_ than
>> like either a modern whale or hippo (although _Pakicetus_ was already
>> modified in the whale direction and was *not* itself a candidate for
>> common ancestor of whales and hippos).
>
>
>It's amazing how much you can imagine and invent, given some greek and latin words.
And it is truly mind-boggling what you can imagine and invent knowing
absolutely *nothing*!
>
>J McCoy
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
O most lamentable man! -- of wit you never had an atom,
and of letters you have three only!
-- they spell A-s-s!
- Cyrano de Bergerac -
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1fslqu6.13ih9gl1xh0imaN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Mark VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <cb65864a.03032...@posting.google.com>, Nowhere Man
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
> > >
> > > If what evolutionists say is true then God himself has bared false
> > > witness. That is impossible because God cannot lie.
> >
> > "born". Past tense of "bear".
>
> Borne...
Bor'n: Midwestern slang; boring
Steve
J McCoy
This is fascinating. Can you you elaborate on the extant of your
"religious indoctrination"? What did you read?
The extent of my religious indoctrination was that I wasn't. I went to
church a little. I leaned about how the disciples met Jesus. But most
of the time I spent in school where I first heard of evolution in
fourth grade. I accepted evolution into my system and this became the
basis of how certain antagonists in my stories came to be. The Shark
People had evolved from sharks in my stories. I've had an explicable
feeling in the back of my mind that evolution had not been fully
explained in my mind, and the evidence that I had thus far was
insufficient for proof. I assumed that the full explanation would be
found in books written by persons with Ph.Ds. In high school I began
to reject evolution. Previously I found religion to be somewhat
disdainful to me. That consisted of TV preachers, glamour, robes and
the sort. I found religion to be impractical and emotional. I had a
change of mind when I began to be challenged to find rational reasons
to believe in God. And all of a sudden it was practical and made lots
of sense. In the beggining, however, I felt the one advantage to being
a creationist is that you could now win arguments with those who held
the silly evolutionist thinking. Later on I came to tone this down. I
recall when I was debating students in forth grade as to the reality
of gravity on the moon and how I was correct on this. So early on I
came to think on my own and not trust the points of view of those who
could write better than I could (as a forth grader). Who published
textbooks.
I recall reading the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as a child.
Those were easy to read. I read some of Genesis until I tired of the
begats.
J McCoy
rossum
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.03.28....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:57:37 +0000, rossum wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:27:22 +0000 (UTC), some_wh...@yahoo.com
>> > (Nowhere Man) wrote:
>>
>> >>First we will focus on the dogma that man evolved from an ape-like
>> >>animal.
>>
>> > 1 Anatomical. The living animals that are the most similar to humans
>> > are the African great apes, in particular the Chimpanzee. When Linnaeus
>> > first classified the Chimpanzee he called it "Homo troglodytes". Note
>> > that "Homo", just the same as in "Homo sapiens". Linnaeus was a
>> > creationist writing in the eighteenth century. It was obvious then that
>> > we are very similar to apes. We share a lot of characteristics with the
>> > apes, and indeed we can be classified as an Ape ourselves: large brain,
>> > no tail, tendancy to upright stance. We are also mammals: hair, milk,
>> > warm blood. We are also vertebrates, metazoans and eukaryotes. We fit
>> > neatly into the overall hierarchical classification of living things,
>> > right in among the apes.
>>
>> I wonder whether evolution deniers think humans are mammals, and if so
>> what that tells them.
>
>Gee I wonder if evolution supporters like Arby's curly fries.
>
>Nowhere Man
>
>[Place your own Beatles joke here]
I'm sorry Nowhere Man, I am obviously a bit stupid and do not get your
meaning. Could you please say weather that was a "Yes humans are
mammals" a "No humans are not mammals" or an "I don't know if humans
are mammals or not."
Thanks,
rossum
AC
The media frequently gets things wrong, or at least oversimplifies. That is
why people who wish to learn about science do not use CNN and even National
Geographic as source material. But I'm sure you know this already. It's
just easier to beat on strawmen then actually debate the theories that
scientists actually work with.
Kermit
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...> news:<slrnb87dso.13c...@clausen.alberni.net>...> > > > > In a previous post, I pointed out that many evolutionists promote
> > > > > dogma as scientific fact. Some of this dogma even slips into science
> > > > > textbooks in public schools. There is no excuse for this. Many people
> > > > > naturally denied these accusations. So in reply I'm going to focus on
> > > > > one area of evolutionist dogma at a time. This way, it will be harder
> > > > > for them wiggle out of answering such simple questions.
> > > >
> > > > What dogma? You asserted there was dogma, but never stated what. In
> fact,
> > > > I'm still waiting for you to state exactly the dogma you speak of.
> > >
> > > Your dogma that causes you to curse others that don't believe.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way, stay out of my kids' school with your religion.
> > >
> > > Creationism isn't a religion. The word religion is re-legion.
> > > Affirmation of a number of people that you're together with.
> >
> > Creationism is a religious doctrine. If you do not agree, please present
> > the name of anyone who is of a YECish state of mind that is an atheist.
>
> The word religion comes from re and legion. Legion meaning a group of
> people. That creationism is officially held by any church as a
> doctrine, or formulation of creed, is debatable.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. In my Grandaddy's church, it was
certainly one of the tests for being recognized as a Christian.
Perhaps there are Baptists out there who can tell me if one can be a
Southern Baptist now and accept mainstream science? My information is
40 years out of date.
>
> Now scientific creationism looks at the world and applies it to unique
> creation.
Really! Far out; there's a theory of Creationism now. What is it? How
is it falsifiable, what does it predict? What data does it explain
which Natural Selection does not?
>
> Evolution is a tenet held by religious humanists, and in particular,
> signers of Humanist Manifesto I. Some universities have held classes
> on religious humanism.
Also by secular humanists, such as myself, who are agnostics and/or
atheists; as well as many Muslims, Hindus, Zen Buddhists, and
Zoroastrians. What's your point?
>
> J McCoy
BTW, what dogma?
>
>
>
> >
> > <snip McNumbnut'z inane babble.>
> >
> > Boikat
> >
> > --
> > Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
> > go ahead and cheat a friend,
> > do it in the name of Heaven,
> > you can justify it in the end.
> > There wont be any trumpets blowing,
> > come the judgement day.
> > On the bloody morning after,
> > One Tin Soldier rides away.
> > -- "One Tin Soldier"
Steven J.
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote in message news:<127ccf2e.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> > > But tsk. Say what's weird? What about cows evolving into whales?
> > > That's a whale of a tale.
> > >
> > Actually, genetic evidence suggests that the closet living relatives
> > of whales are hippopotamuses.
>
> More nonsense.
>
"suggests," not "proves." For my statement to be nonsense, either it
is impossible to compare whole or sampled genetic sequences of
different species, or, if it is possible, I would have to be mistating
the facts. Now I assert, based on my reading, that whales as a group
have genetic sequences closer to those of artiodactyls (even toed
hoofed animals) than to those of any other order of animal, and closer
to those of hippos than to any other family of artiodactyls.
Now, you have argued elsewhere that the genetic similarities of humans
and chimps are simply required by the similarities in bodily structure
(why the similarities of bodily structure are required is an
interesting question, which evolution can answer better than design,
but no matter). I suppose you could extend this point, and argue that
whales *ought* to have genes similar to those of hippos, since both
are big, mostly hairless mammals with big mouths that live in water.
Note, though, that given the redundancy of the genetic code (each
amino acid is coded for by multiple three-nucleotide codons), humans
and chimps could be as similar physically and biochemically as they
are, while being only about 70% genetically identical. Likewise, the
similarities even in coding genes between whales and artiodactyls are
greater than necessary for any similarity of function (but, as noted
before, not as similar as they might be, if an efficient Designer had
simply reused identical genes for identical functions).
But some of the similarities between humans and chimps are
similarities in noncoding DNA -- shared endogenous retroviruses and
shared pseudogenes like the vitamin C pseudogene. And some of the
similarities between whales and hippos are likewise shared endogenous
retroviruses -- bits of DNA that code for nothing, and whose
similarity cannot be required by any similarity of function.
Indeed, some of the similarities in functional genes can't be
explained by similar structures and needs. Take, for example,
cytochrome-c, an enzyme that serves the same function in all species
that have it, but which exists in many different variants. It would
make no difference to function if cetacean cytochrome-c most closely
resembled frog or pine tree cytochrome-c, but in fact it most closely
resembles the cytochrome-c of artiodactyls.
Interestingly, although human and chimp cytochrome-c is identical, the
actual genes for this enzyme differ by one nucleotide between humans
and chimps. Thus the enzyme is more similar than necessary for its
similarity in function, but the genes are less similar than might be
expected, given the identical structure and formula of the enzyme
itself.
>
> > And of course both are modifed forms of
> > an artiodactyl common ancestor that looked more like _Pakicetus_ than
> > like either a modern whale or hippo (although _Pakicetus_ was already
> > modified in the whale direction and was *not* itself a candidate for
> > common ancestor of whales and hippos).
>
>
> It's amazing how much you can imagine and invent, given some greek and latin > words.
>
Well, that, and a few fossils, and some DNA sequences and methods of
comparing them, and data on biogeography and comparative anatomy.
By the way, the "_paki_" in _Pakicetus_ is Hindustani, not Greek or
Latin (the "_cetus_" is, of course, Latin for "whale"). _Paki_ means
"pure," implying that the land-living pakicetids were "pure whales,"
although I'm pretty sure the reference is to Pakistan the country, not
purity the concept.
>
> J McCoy
>
-- Steven J.