Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Oct 2, 6:19 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:22:22 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:17:19 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett>
: > : enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: > :
: > : >Ye Old One wrote:
: > : >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:16:54 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett>
: > : >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
: > : >>
: > : >>> And evolution and biology do not
: > : >>> belong in the same sentence
: > : >>
: > : >> Of course they do.
: > : >>
: > : >> Evolution is the basis of all modern biology.
: > : >
: > : >Somehow that suggest biology needs evolution.
: > : >
: > : >Which is false.
: > :
: > : Biology doesn't get far without it.
: >
: > Biology does just fine without the imagined belief of
: > their *version* of evolution - the one where fish evolved into
: > human beings. But dogs evolving/adapting into different dogs?
: > Mosquitoes evolving/adapting into different mosquitoes? That
: > version of evolution remains perfectly intact when you throw out
: > the imagined version that tries to hide behind it.
:
: so should drug testing companies stop testing their drugs on animals?
: if we arent related to animals, what possible use could testing drugs
: on them have?
They are a life that has some similarities (although huge
differences). So such tests are not rock solid that the results
will be the same on human life, but it's a starting point. Notice
we do these tests whether we believe fish learn, over
generations, to walk on two legs, breathe air, and learn to read
and write English or not.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:45:39 -0700 (PDT), snex <x...@comcast.net>
Okay tell me where in any biology text book - that touches on the
subject of evolution - it says that fish learnt to walk on two legs or
any other such tripe.
Gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It is claimed that fish evolved into reptiles. It is
claimed reptiles evolved into mammals. It is claimed Apes (a
mammal) evolved into man. So over generations, that fish
learning, over generations, to breathe air instead of water,
learn to walk on two legs, learn to read and write every language
known to man, learning to design, build and program computers,
and so on, is exactly the ridiculous sort of science fiction
fantasies they fool and indoctrinate so many into believing
without even realizing it.
Did you honestly not realize when you look at what they
claim that this is exactly what they're saying when you stop to
actually think about it?
wf3h
>
> It is claimed that fish evolved into reptiles. It is
> claimed reptiles evolved into mammals. It is claimed Apes (a
> mammal) evolved into man. So over generations, that fish
> learning, over generations, to breathe air instead of water,
> learn to walk on two legs, learn to read and write every language
> known to man, learning to design, build and program computers,
> and so on, is exactly the ridiculous sort of science fiction
> fantasies they fool and indoctrinate so many into believing
> without even realizing it.
>
> Did you honestly not realize when you look at what they
> claim that this is exactly what they're saying when you stop to
> actually think about it?
just cuz you dont LIKE the facts doesn't affect the fact they ARE
facts. hell i don't like the fact i have to go to work every day, but
guess what?
i go to work every day.
Gabriel
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
You're free to believe it's a fact that you evolved from
fish. Others are free to dismiss that religious belief and look
for actual truth.
wf3h
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:14:30 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
>
since when did science become religion. you christianists think
everything is religion. that's why the west made no progress
scientifically for 1600 years...christianity stopped it cold
Gabriel
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Science is not religion. But the belief that you evolved
over generations from fish, which is hardly science, is yet
another religion.
wf3h
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:03:50 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>
> :
> : since when did science become religion. you christianists think
> : everything is religion. that's why the west made no progress
> : scientifically for 1600 years...christianity stopped it cold
>
> Science is not religion. But the belief that you evolved
> over generations from fish, which is hardly science, is yet
> another religion.
not a single scientist agrees with you. none. the only folks
supporting your cult beliefs are the taliban christians who think the
3rd century was the pinnacle of science
Mark Isaak
> Science is not religion. But the belief that you evolved
> over generations from fish, which is hardly science, is yet
> another religion.
Creationists sure hate religion.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ye Old One
Good job you understand that.
>But the belief that you evolved
>over generations from fish, which is hardly science,
Of course it is - very good science in fact.
> is yet
>another religion.
Nope.
--
Bob.
Kermit
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:03:50 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>
Nonsense. It is a model that has been tested in numerous ways for 140
years or so, by hundreds of thousands of scientists in numerous
fields. Here are some of the supporting data, from multiple scientific
disciplines, all contributing to the same picture:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence. (Changes in ecosystems, the
characteristics of organisms indicated by their fossils, etc all
showing adaptations to changes, divergence corresponding to separation
of the continents, and so on.)
The nested hierarchies of morphology, vestigial organs, biochemistry,
genomes.
The fact that all of these nested hierarchies parallel the others is
evidence in itself.
Behavioral sciences are illuminated by the understanding of common
descent via modification.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
Given the evidence, I see several possibilities:
1. This is how the creator god did it. (a)
2. There is no creator god.
3. The creator god is a trickster god, and nothing he says can be
trusted, since none of the world we see around us can be trusted. This
would include any so-called miracles or holy books. (b)
These all fit with what we know, and none of them can be tested in any
way I can see. I prefer the simpler explanation myself, but the other
two are viable alternatives, I suppose. Which do you prefer?
(a) Thousands of scientists who are theists have no problem
reconciling their religion with science.
(b) There are other logical possibilities, such as a computer Matrix
virtual reality, but they are all some version of illusion.
Kermit