Evolution of a Cola
needgod.com
Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know
that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened
by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
The EYE:
Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
Charles Darwin said,
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
The Painting:
When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
The Human:
When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
DJT
needgod.com wrote:
snipping argument from incredulity and quote mining...
Looks like Logos has changed his name again.
DJT
dysfunction
needgod.com wrote:
(snip)
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
>
This is the quote-mine of all quote-mines, as Darwin himself goes on to
explain in the *very next sentence* a plausible route by which the eye
might indeed have evolved. Darwin was posing a question that at first
glance seemed unsolvable, and then solving it.
needgod.com
eye is. We now know how complex it is and how all of its parts have to
work together at once in order for you to see.
SO
What evolved first the cornea or the retina?
bullpup
"needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
>
> Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know
> that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened
> by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
It's an insult to anyone's intelligence because it's a false analogy.
>
>
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
Did you also know it's wire backwards?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
You've probably never even held a copy of The Origin of Species in your
hand, much less read it to grab this little tidbit. Your post is insulting
because you've taken a snippet of Darwin out of context. I'd bet good money
that you don't have a hair on your ass, or you'd post the rest of what he
said about the evolution of the eye. But, you will not because you've never
read the book to begin with.
>
> The Painting:
>
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
So?
>
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
Yup, Momma and Poppa Boikat.
>
> Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
>
I'm not even going to bother going there. Why? Because I am growing more
weary with time of you god-smacked morons yapping like a deranged chahuahua
about how "wrong" the Theory of Evolution is, when you don't know the first
thing about the ToE, or science in general. Oh, and then there's the
dishonesty of out of context quotes. Are you soooo moronic that you think
nobody has read OToS? How stupid can you get?.
Now wipe the drool ans snot off your face, and ask your god to forgive you
for being an ignorant twit.
BTW, you can believe whatever you want, just don't make yourself look like
an ignorant hick in the name of your god.
Boikat
--
<42><
eerok
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
.
needgod.com
(instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
yourself and know there was a creator.
How can evolution create you?
Shane
<snip pratts and quotemines>
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
If something as simple as a human requires a Creator, doesn't the
Creator, which must be more complex that a mere human, then require a
CREATOR also, and so on, and on and on and on.
Please do feel free to tell us how you remove the need for this
infinite regression of creators, without removing the need for any
creator at all?
John Harshman
> Yes that may be true about Darwin
You understand that you have just admitted to lying by omission, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some commandment or other about
bearing false witness? Doesn't god supposedly frown upon this sort of
behavior? Perhaps if you truly repent your sin, you will be forgiven.
> But he did not know how complex the
> eye is. We now know how complex it is and how all of its parts have to
> work together at once in order for you to see.
> SO
> What evolved first the cornea or the retina?
Darwin covered that in the paragraph immediately following the sentence
you quote-mined. But for something a bit more recent, try this:
Nilsson, D. and Pelger, S. 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time
required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B 256:53-58.
Steven J.
the lancelet, among our fellow chordates, and the chambered nautilus,
among cephalopods), but so far as I know, no eyes with corneas and no
retinas. There are, indeed, eyes with nothing but a sort of cornea --
a blotch of light-sensitive cells on the smooth surface of the skin
(e.g. planaria). There are eyes, like those of the lancelet, that have
small corneas in a shallow funnel or bowl. There are eyes, like those
of the nautilus, with an enclosed "pinhole camera" eye, like ours but
with no cornea or lens. All these different eyes work adequately for
the organisms that have them. So rather obviously, all the parts don't
have to work together at once in order for an organism to see.
-- Steven J.
bullpup
> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
> yourself and know there was a creator.
False analogy.
> How can evolution create you?
>
For some value of "creat", Mutation/Genetic Drift + Natural Selection + a
Shit Load of Time = Boikat.
Boikat
Steven J.
needgod.com wrote:
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
>
> Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know
> that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened
> by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
>
because we know there is a maker (the existence of the Coca-Cola Co. is
not widely disputed, especially in Atlanta, GA, where its world
headquarters is located. On the other hand, factories that make either
universes or ecologies are not known, nor are any manufacturies of
complex biological organs headquartered in the United States.
>
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
>
complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful
to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary
ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly
the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever
useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the
difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed
by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly
be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly
concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may
remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may
be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser
vibrations of the air which produce sound.
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has
been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors;
but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to
look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral
descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or
little altered condition." _Origin of Species_, chapter 6, section 3,
"Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complexity."
"
>
> The Painting:
>
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
>
This is because, in our experience, paintings are produced by painters.
It is inference of a known class of causes from a known class of
effects of such causes.
>
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
>
Who put in a plantaris tendon (in most, not all, humans), whose homolog
in other primates enables the animal to clench its foot, but which does
not connect to the foot bones in humans, and Who endowed humans with
pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses shared with other primate
species.
>
> Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
-- Steven J.
macaddicted
Sanctimonious pap.
--
macaddicted
Theology should quietly accept the fact that there are various kinds
of knowledge and that it has to face this pluralism of knowledge
constantly in the hope of acheiving a fruitful exchange. J. Metz
coaster
(snip tired creationist nonsense)
> Charles Darwin said,
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Here is the real quote from The Origin of Species...
"Organs of extreme perfection and complication. -- To suppose that the
eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for
the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and
simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to
exist; if further, the eye does vary every so slightly, and the
variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any
variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing
that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection,
though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more
than how life its self first originated; but I may remark that several
facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered
sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air
which produce sound."
As you can see Charles Darwin was not suggesting that the evolution of
the eye was impossible. He was merely acknowledging the difficulty of
the question and pondering the potential pathways to discovering the
true answer.
So, needgod, I'm curious. Are you a liar or were you simply mistaken?
Dale
[...]
> Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
Why are fundamentalist christians such liars? This site presents a test of
eight questions, and then claims to score your answers to those questions,
but never gives a score even after you click on the SCORE button. Very
annoying!
coaster
> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
> yourself and know there was a creator.
Actually DNA is much less complex than a painting. If you translated
the molecular information in a painting into bits of data (0's and 1's)
then the painting would be Billions Upon Trillions of times more
complex than the molecular information stored in a strand of human DNA.
But it's a false analogy anyway because DNA is not a conscious
product.
When a human produces a painting he's not painting molecules, he's
painting a portrait or a bowl of fruit. His intent is to make the
molecules look like something familiar or abstract.
When nature produces an organism on the other hand, it's not
consciously creating limbs and organs, nor does it have any
preconception about what things should look like. It's unwittingly
organizing molecules using a random process to create variation within
a population and select quite automatically, by survival and
procreation, those particular variations that are more fit for their
environment.
> How can evolution create you?
You don't ask for much do you!? It would take far too long to explain
how evolution works to a degree that you would be satisfied with
because you clearly lack even the most basic understanding.. most of
which would have been covered in your high school biology class had you
not been home schooled.
If you are truly interested in learning about the world outside your
front door then the link below is a good place to start. It puts
everything in layman's terms with pretty pictures to help you visualize
the process. It also contains links to many good resources:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>From the first abiotic RNA, to the first protein, cells and ultimately
us... Life is the rare but inevitable product of the nature of our
universe.
Bobby D. Bryant
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
When you look at biology you know there has been evolution.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ye Old One
If you look at the human eye you see something that if far from an
example of good design. Our sort of eye is not the only working
example, and other eyes work a lot better than ours.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<brunob...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It took about 4 billion years of very simple steps.
--
Bob.
Tony Raymonds
needgod.com <brunob...@hotmail.com> writes
>When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
>
>Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
Your scoring page is impossible to fill out, when it asks:
"Do you think you would go to Heaven or Hell?"
You need a third option which is "Neither exist".
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
alextangent
But really funny if you keep going. Eventually you get to buy an
"Evolution Pack" that's an ID/religious fundy pack in disguise (hey,
what else would you expect?). But the real belly laugh in this is the
single review
<quote>
This is the most needed subject in the US The battle for Intelligent
Desgin Rages in the Public School. My own son's Science Teacher has a
Fish insiginia on her car. Is it A chrisitian insignia? No its not.
Within the Fish are the Letters D-A-R-W-I-N. This to me borders on the
blasphemous.
</quote>
I laughed til I wept.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Tony Raymonds
needgod.com <brunob...@hotmail.com> writes
Hahahahah, It's rigged! There is no "scoring" system and it ignores
the questionnaire answers completely.
According to your quiz everyone ends up in hell whatever they do, so you
might as well have some fun beforehand ;-)
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
Marc
If he's changed it to "Coke", they'll sue.
(signed) marc
.
Marc
If you ask nicely, there are some of us here that have access to
such articles over the web and could easily send you the paper.
Asking nicely implies that you will make a reasonable effort to
read the article (honest questions will get honest answers) and
then you can discuss this with us.
There are of course a number of other related articles that you
should look at if you want to understand the evolution of vision.
(None of them are on creationism websites, however.)
(signed) marc
.
Marc
needgod.com wrote:
> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
> yourself and know there was a creator.
It is not. But these days, a really good painting will have DNA
added to it so the fakes can be shown to be fakes.
If you can learn that life evolved, it will make the painter doing
his thing all the more interesting. Art is a product of evolution.
> How can evolution create you?
Many of us here happen to know. Would you like to have
us tell you? (Hint - first start with the FAQs on the web site.)
Tell me... what was the most recent science class you have
had to study? Did you do well or was it a real chore?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and call you a net-troll
at this early stage - are you one?
(signed) marc
.
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> The EYE:
do you mean the human eye, the primate eye, the mammllian eye...?
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
<snip>
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
do you believe any evolution occurred? Were humans created or did they
evolve from (other) apes? Was every creature created by a special act
by
god or did some forms change into others?
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
'DNA is like a computer program,
but far, far more advanced than any
software we've ever created.'
Bill Gates
SeppoP
I Doubt it. Just yet another brainless kook.
He's posting from 71.209.148.88 (Qwest networks) whereas Logos posts from 68.234.101.77 (Adelphi).
>
> DJT
>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Alan Kellogg
"needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
By making more mistakes than a 1st grade math class.
TomS
<1148874986....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, needgod.com stated..."
You seem to misunderstand evolution. I did not evolve. Individuals
do not evolve. Populations evolve. I grew, I developed from a fertlized
egg.
If your complaint is that a natural process could not be responsible
for my body, then your complaint is not with evolutionary biology, but
with reproductive biology.
Many people have no problem with accepting scientific investigations
into the origins of individual bodies, and find that that is perfectly
consistent with their being creatures of God.
The "creationists", however, have some problem with events of long
ago and far away, and with the origins of "kinds".
I have a difficult time distinguishing creationism from deism -
the idea that God's only significant action in the world was in
events of long ago and far away, such as the origins of kinds.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
Arkalen
:
Even Jesus would go to hell with that questionnaire :D
SRNissen
It didn't. My parents "created" me.
- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC
Stanley Friesen
>
>needgod.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> The EYE:
>> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
>> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
>> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>>
>> Charles Darwin said,
>>
>> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
>> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
>>
>
>This is the quote-mine of all quote-mines, as Darwin himself goes on to
>explain in the *very next sentence* a plausible route by which the eye
>might indeed have evolved. Darwin was posing a question that at first
>glance seemed unsolvable, and then solving it.
Indeed this was Darwin's regular style - with a few exceptions he
started *each* chapter with a question of this sort and then went on to
answer it. He was anticipating the arguments his opponents would bring
up.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
Nit - I would change the last word to something like "perceive light".
I really can't see myself saying a planarian can *see*.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Painting:
>
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
Even Jackson Pollack?
(Actually, a recent study showed that Pollack's paintings were not random
sploshes of paint but had structural hierarchies within hierarchies, like
the Mandelbrot Set.)
Anyways, we would clearly identify a painting as by a human hand* rather
than a supernatural one, so what's your point? (*Except for that chimp
artist a few years ago--the works sold quite well as abstract
impressionism).
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
David Iain Greig
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
You know, posting the above misquote alone qualifies you as either
ignorant or a liar. Let us know which is the right one or if both
apply.
http://www.ediacara.org/darquot3.html
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
David Iain Greig
CREAT(2) FreeBSD System Calls Manual CREAT(2)
NAME
creat -- create a new file
LIBRARY
Standard C Library (libc, -lc)
SYNOPSIS
#include <fcntl.h>
creat(const char path, mode_t_mode);
Desertphile
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
When do the tears of rage show up?
Desertphile
> YeS THAt May BE tRUE ABOUT DaRWIn BUt he did nOT kNoW How CoMplex ThE
> eYe is. We nOw KnoW hoW CoMPLEX It Is And hOW aLl of its paRTS HaVe TO
> WORk together at OnCe iN oRder fOR yoU TO See.
> sO
> What eVOlvEd fIrst tHe coRnEa or THE retIna?
The egg. No, wait: the chicken! Er, no... the egg! Er, ah, no, the
chicken!
Oh, I'm so confused! (Like nashton) Can you restate the question,
please?
Desertphile
> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
> yourself and know there was a creator.
Therefore, according to you, any creator must have a creator. Where are
the creators for your gods?
"Oops! Oh dear I didn't think of that!" you say to yourself, as you
fill up with shame and ire at your stupidity.
Desertphile
> On 28 May 2006 20:22:49 -0700, needgod.com wrote:
> <snip pratts and quotemines>
> > The Human:
> > When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
> If something as simple as a human requires a Creator, doesn't the
> Creator, which must be more complex that a mere human, then require a
> CREATOR also, and so on, and on and on and on.
>
> Please do feel free to tell us how you remove the need for this
> infinite regression of creators, without removing the need for any
> creator at all?
nutgod said in another article that DNA is "too complex" to not have a
creator. This suggest he also believes those creators must be more
complex than DNA. So.... how did those creators get created? He will
*NEVER* answer that question because he knows damn well any "answer" he
gives will be foolish.
Desertphile
> needgod.com wrote:
> (snip tired creationist nonsense)
> > Charles Darwin said,
> > "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> > seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Why do Creationists always take the base, low, unhonorable path
whenever possible? Why do they insist on lying?
> Here is the real quote from The Origin of Species...
>
> "Organs of extreme perfection and complication. -- To suppose that the
> eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
> different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for
> the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
> formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
> highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous
> gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and
> simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to
> exist; if further, the eye does vary every so slightly, and the
> variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any
> variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal
> under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing
> that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection,
> though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
> How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more
> than how life its self first originated; but I may remark that several
> facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered
> sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air
> which produce sound."
>
> As you can see Charles Darwin was not suggesting that the evolution of
> the eye was impossible. He was merely acknowledging the difficulty of
> the question and pondering the potential pathways to discovering the
> true answer.
>
> So, needgod, I'm curious. Are you a liar or were you simply mistaken?
Indeed. Chapter Five of Professor Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount
Improbable" gives examples of *FORTY* different types of eyes, all of
which differ from very "simple" to very "complex." Since Creationists
claim to believe "half an eye" doesn't do any good, they must ignore
such uncomfortable facts.
Desertphile
> "needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
ROTFL! Owwwww.... my face hurts from laughing so hard at this "test!"
GODDAMN IT'S FUNNY!
I have come to the conclusion that one cannot be a Creationist and also
a good person. Indeed, one cannot be a Fundamentalist Christian and
also be a good person. The evidence for these two opinions is vast and
grows greater every day.
> Why are fundamentalist christians such liars? This site presents a test of
> eight questions, and then claims to score your answers to those questions,
> but never gives a score even after you click on the SCORE button. Very
> annoying!
It "worked" for me, though the "score" has nothing at all to do with
being a good person---- but then, neither does the "test."
Mark Isaak
> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
> yourself and know there was a creator.
> How can evolution create you?
How can four billion years of ceaseless forces towards more efficient
reproduction (and all that reproduction requires) NOT produce the
complexity we see in life?
--
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
Desertphile
> Dale wrote:
Yeah, I laughed so hard I think I might have wet my knickers a bit. To
the "question" regarding where one thinks one will "go" after death,
one is presented with only two out of billions of possible answer. Now
*THAT'S* funny. When answering "Heaven" one gets another web page that
yells out "WRONG!" which is even funnier! Landover Baptist Church could
not spoof this shit.
> --
> Regards
> Alex McDonald
Desertphile
> bullpup <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "needgod <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1148874986....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> How can evolution create you?
> > For some value of "creat", Mutation/Genetic Drift + Natural Selection + a
> > Shit Load of Time = Boikat.
> CREAT(2) FreeBSD System Calls Manual CREAT(2)
>
> NAME
> creat -- create a new file
>
> LIBRARY
> Standard C Library (libc, -lc)
>
> SYNOPSIS
> #include <fcntl.h>
>
> creat(const char path, mode_t_mode);
Cool! I never would have thought of that. I wonder if it will work.
Dim EarthlyBeing As New HumanOrganism
Set EarthlyBeing = HumanOrganism("Britney Spears")
EarthlyBeing.Age = 16
EarthlyBeing.Libido = True
EarthlyBeing.Preferences("Fat Old Men") = True
EarthlyBeing.Action = vbCreateInstance
Waiting.... waiting.... still waiting..... Damn! It didn't work. Maybe
if I tried the Drew Barrymore object....
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> ...if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer...
And indeed life had a designer too. It's called evolution, and evolution as
"the maker" fits the available evidence much better than the supposedly
omni-everything heavenly sadist described in the wholly babble.
> Charles Darwin said,
> "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural
selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
"...yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and
complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to
its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so
slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and
if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal
under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though
insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve
comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life
itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me
suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and
likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce
sound." (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
(from the archives of this newsgroup, namely
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html)
Wouldn't want to miss something important, something that would change the
meaning of the original quote totally, would we?
If there's one single piece of evidence against evolutionary theory, it's
babblical cretinists' and IDiots' claims. They didn't evolve a single bit
for the last couple of decades... sometimes even for centuries.
> Can you be a good liar for jehoover the sadist? Join me at www.needgod.com
Mistakes in above line corrected for OP's convenience.
Good job fundie brat. You sucessfully and totally made a fool of yourself.
Right on, I'm sure you'll get a boner imagining how you can sell the
justified mocking of your bullcrap as "persecution of the righteous" to
your fellow brainwashed...
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Walter Bushell
"needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes that may be true about Darwin But he did not know how complex the
> eye is. We now know how complex it is and how all of its parts have to
> work together at once in order for you to see.
> SO
> What evolved first the cornea or the retina?
Both, but since the retina in its first stages was a mere light
sensitive spot. In mollusks we have _living examples_ of the entire
process from light sensitive spot to fully formed eyes.
This post reaches a level of ignorance, arrogance and stolidity that
leads me to the guess that I have been trolled.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Pithecanthropus Erectus
When the cola turns out to be Pepsi and not Coke.
--
Freeper:
"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "
Me:
I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.
Freeper:
I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Here is a site that displays art by elephants; a pretty good standard of
impressionism for non-human animals:
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
I am not sure if the elephants chose the color, or if their guides chose
the colors for them; but the painting is good.
needgod.com
1 cor 1:27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might
put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the
world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
Dean Chesterman
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
As do the ones painted by the elephant in the Valley Zoo, Edmonton,
Alberta. Her work is much better than most human abstract artists.
Dean Chesterman
needgod.com
Matt Silberstein
Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> in
<cabal-slrne7m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
>bullpup <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> "needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1148874986....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> DNA is much more complex than a painting,It contains code
>>> (instruction), If you know there was a painter than you should see
>>> yourself and know there was a creator.
>>
>> False analogy.
>>
>>> How can evolution create you?
>>>
>>
>> For some value of "creat", Mutation/Genetic Drift + Natural Selection + a
>> Shit Load of Time = Boikat.
>
>
>CREAT(2) FreeBSD System Calls Manual CREAT(2)
>
>NAME
> creat -- create a new file
My dyslexia made me read that last word as life.
>LIBRARY
> Standard C Library (libc, -lc)
>
>SYNOPSIS
> #include <fcntl.h>
>
> creat(const char path, mode_t_mode);
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Robert Weldon
You can't use a book written by people who believed in God as proof of God's
existence.
John McKendry
Something about this rings a familiar bell. Who writes like this?
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.209.148.88
;; ANSWER SECTION:
88.148.209.71.in-addr.arpa. 81109 IN PTR 71-209-148-88.phnx.qwest.net.
phnx.qwest.net. Who was it who used to post from Phoenix on Qwest?
Somebody here...
Yup.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/fdbe3c1baaf2cdee?&hl=en
"A sample post from "Skywise" was from "70-56-186-171.phnx.qwest.net",
which I presume to be in Phoenix, AZ."
I am not a gambling man, but I bet a nickel that "needgod.com" is
Skywise/Church of the Painful Truth/Richard Dawkins/Kant/Ray Ambrosini.
(The actual domain name "needgod.com" belongs to someone in California,
but if this is Ray Ambrosini it won't be the first time he's adopted a
name belonging to someone else.)
John
Dale
news:1148917967.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dale wrote:
> > "needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]
> > > Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
>
> ROTFL! Owwwww.... my face hurts from laughing so hard at this "test!"
> GODDAMN IT'S FUNNY!
>
> I have come to the conclusion that one cannot be a Creationist and also
> a good person. Indeed, one cannot be a Fundamentalist Christian and
> also be a good person. The evidence for these two opinions is vast and
> grows greater every day.
It's because their entire foundation is built on lies. They lie to
themsleves and they seem to revel in this lying.
> > Why are fundamentalist christians such liars? This site presents a test
of
> > eight questions, and then claims to score your answers to those
questions,
> > but never gives a score even after you click on the SCORE button. Very
> > annoying!
>
> It "worked" for me, though the "score" has nothing at all to do with
> being a good person---- but then, neither does the "test."
Yeah, but what I wanted was something like:
0-3 Correct Answers: Your Eternal Soul is in great peril! Accept Jesus into
your heart before it's too late!
4-6 Correct Answers: More Bible study for you! Revelations 3:16 says: "So
then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee
out of my mouth."
7-8 Correct Answers: You think you know so much, but God will dangle your
soul by a spider's web over the fiery pits of Hell for your Hubris!
needgod.com
Somebody here...
Yup.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/fdbe3c1baaf2cd...
"A sample post from "Skywise" was from "70-56-186-171.phnx.qwest.net",
which I presume to be in Phoenix, AZ."
I am not a gambling man, but I bet a nickel that "needgod.com" is
Skywise/Church of the Painful Truth/Richard Dawkins/Kant/Ray Ambrosini.
(The actual domain name "needgod.com" belongs to someone in
California,
but if this is Ray Ambrosini it won't be the first time he's adopted a
name belonging to someone else.)
Im new here I first posted yesterday. Needgod.com belongs to Kirk
Cameron, Ray Comfort, Livingwaters.com I use it with permission.
John McKendry
I owe you a nickel, then. And you may not know it if you don't
know Ray Ambrosini, but I owe you an apology, too. I apologize
for accusing you of being Ray, and for implying that you are using
the domain "needgod.com" without permission.
John
John Wilkins
> Desertphile wrote:
>
>> needgod.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The COLA:
>>
>>
>>> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
>>
>>
>> When do the tears of rage show up?
>>
>
> When the cola turns out to be Pepsi and not Coke.
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Shane
Ahhh, so now complex things do not need a creator. So why did you say
before that they did? You really need to get your story straight
before embarassing yourself on usenet.
Steven J.
always existed need a cause, but Entities which have always existed do
not, and that for entities that have both a beginning and a certain
sort of complexity, that cause must be intelligent.
Beyond that, Christian theology has classically held that God is
simple, not complex; that is, God does not have separable component
parts. Humans have parts that can be pried apart (even if we might not
survive the prying), from gross anatomy like hearts and arms, to
cellular subcomponents like mitochondria and ribosomes, but God doesn't
have organs or subcomponents (the three Persons of the Trinity are not
distinct in the manner of, e.g. the members of a court of appeals).
This might raise the question of why, if intelligence and efficacy
don't require complexity, the Creator bothered to endow us with so much
of it. This was done, of course, so that we could appreciate the
gratuitous specified complexity of our design, and realize that it
requires the intervention of an intelligent designer.
-- Steven J.
Desertphile
> Shane wrote:
Surely one should wait until gods show up to be weighed and measured
before one can state what their traits, abilities, and thought
processes are. I am amazed how often theists love to define their gods
by pure, baseless speculation.
No one knows anything at all about any gods.
> -- Steven J.
Shane
> Shane wrote:
>> On 29 May 2006 09:55:01 -0700, needgod.com wrote:
>>
>>> God has always existed. God is not bound by time.
>>> 1 cor 1:27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might
>>> put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the
>>> world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
>>
>> Ahhh, so now complex things do not need a creator. So why did you say
>> before that they did? You really need to get your story straight
>> before embarassing yourself on usenet.
>>
> The standard response to this is, first, that entities that have not
> always existed need a cause, but Entities which have always existed do
> not, and that for entities that have both a beginning and a certain
> sort of complexity, that cause must be intelligent.
And that's great except for the complete lack of any reason to believe
that this is the case.
> Beyond that, Christian theology has classically held that God is
> simple, not complex;
But isn't that an increase in information, something that cannot
happen?
sunson
Dale wrote:
> "needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
>
> eight questions, and then claims to score your answers to those questions,
> but never gives a score even after you click on the SCORE button. Very
> annoying!
Heh, if you managed to go beyond that point, they ask you if you bother
about breaking the 'commandments' and then finally they ask "Are you
concerned that you are headed to Hell?". I said "No" and they say "You
should be concerned!".
The only excuse I'm making to the waste of time I did just now is that
I had nothing else to do.
-Suraj
Koppe
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
<SNIP>
I'm afraid this is to a cocacolic as myself a bit simplistic...
There are fosile-evidence for that coca-cola origianlly came in
kegs. These contained a more "pure" cola -- undeluted by
water... and it had yet to develop the "fizz". I specualte that
the "fizzing" could possibly have originally developed as a primitive
defence-mecanism against the cola's natutral enemy (i.e. people
like me).
Later these kegs (obviously) became smaller and lighter (lack of
food?) and the contense became deluted by water, until it got
the size and shape we know today.
For a while though, the coca-cola developed a glass -- rather
than metall -- shells... that over time developed distinctive
grooves (to attract a partner or scare off enemies?). It even
eventually developed into lighter poly-carbon materials. This
flask-shaped shell though, seem to have been a evolutianary
dead-end, and flasks are in danger of becomming extinct in
most of the world.
The proof can be find in fosil-records... admittedly though, this
record is somewhat confusing as it seems that *all* the forms
may have existed side-by-side for a long period of time -- at
least in some parts of the world... This could obviously be used as
an argument *against* the theory of the natural evolution of coca-cola
by some religious groups believing in a creator -- and that coca-cola
is *created* at a factory (although I think the above should have
thouroughly discedited such explainations).
-Koppe
Walter Bushell
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "needgod.com" <brunob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148872969.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The COLA:
>
> >
> > The Painting:
> >
> > When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
>
> Even Jackson Pollack?
>
> (Actually, a recent study showed that Pollack's paintings were not random
> sploshes of paint but had structural hierarchies within hierarchies, like
> the Mandelbrot Set.)
>
> Anyways, we would clearly identify a painting as by a human hand* rather
> than a supernatural one, so what's your point? (*Except for that chimp
> artist a few years ago--the works sold quite well as abstract
> impressionism).
IIRC some elephants also produced artwork that sold.
needgod.com
How do you know that it is created in a factory? Did you see it made
with your own eyes?
The fosil record is evidence for creation. look at it closer.
Friar Broccoli
> > > Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> > > cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> > > aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> > > later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> > > the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
[ ... ]
SRNissen
Hey! You've gotten the hang of quoting, wonderful. That's a lot more
than some people around here do.
To answer your question, we know it's produced in a factory because
we've seen a factory produce stuff, and know how it is done.
When I find a watch in a forest, I do not expect it to have randomly
come together, I expect a watchmaker. That's because I've actually seen
a watchmaker, and I have theoretical knowledge of how he did it.
When I see a great bridge, I do not expect that it came together by
itself. I expect it was designed by an architect and built by an
engineer and a team of workmen. I've seen an architect, an engineer and
many teams of workmen. I have no idea how they did, but I'm told that
they know their job.
When I see a human, I do not expect it came together by itself. I expect
it was manufactured by its parents. I've seen parents - they
occasionally make humans. I have experimental knowledge of the process,
although no children have resulted yet.
I have never seen God, and so I have never seen anything that He could
build.
Do you see how your analogy fails?
The fossil record is fantastic evidence for evolution. It is _also_
evidence for creationism, but that's because no matter what we find, it
can be explained by creationism. If you don't understand why that's bad
science, I'm willing to explain the principle to you in further detail.
- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC
Friar Broccoli
[...]
> The fosil record is evidence for creation. look at it closer.
Part of the fossil record includes at least billions of ROCK
images of roughly 15,000 distinguishable species Trilobites
(LONG extinct crab like creatures). Just how are these
"evidence for creation"?
Another part is coal mines like the one being explored here:
http://www.qgxgold.com/html/shtml/qgx_projects_baruun.shtml
http://www.qgxgold.com/assets/PDF_downloads/Section_36600E_060131.pdf
You will note the 8 or 9 paired layers of coal and rock.
Typically every layer (seam) contains a wide range of fossils,
commonly of long extinct plants.
Just how are multi-layered coal formations "evidence for creation"?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
>
> that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened
> by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
Are you Ray Comfort, or are you quoting from his "Atheist Test" pamphlet
without attribution? (Granted, it's a bit of a stretch to characterize
plagiarizing Ray Comfort's dreck as "theft of intellectual property".;-)
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Out of context. But you just copied this from someplace without ever
thinking to check, didn't you?
> The Painting:
>
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
Might depend on how bad (or modernist) the painting is ;-).
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
So, you're saying that humans resemble paintings? We're flat, and
composed of pigments on canvas? What?
> Are you a good person? Find out at www.needgod.com
Damn sight better 'n you are, both in smarts and ethics.
-- Kizhe
Sam
news:1148873570.8...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> needgod.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > The EYE:
> > Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> > muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> > 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
> >
> > Charles Darwin said,
> >
> > "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> > seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
> >
>
> explain in the *very next sentence* a plausible route by which the eye
> might indeed have evolved. Darwin was posing a question that at first
> glance seemed unsolvable, and then solving it.
Why is this whole eye thing not laid to rest by the fact that it is still
possible to day to observe not just different levels of "complexity" of the
eye by working yourself across (or down) levels of related species? Not
only that, but across all species you can observe different types of eye
design other than the one humans ended up with, form simple photo-sensitive
cell patches to occular vision.
Considering how eyesight of some form is common across almost every species
on the planet (minus species in zero-light conditions), some type of light
sensitive "sight" likely emerged pretty soon after nervous and muscular
systems in early multicellular creatrues 600-500 million years ago.
Richard Forrest
I've been looking at the fossil record closely for about 40 years. I
have spent countless hours in quarries, under cliffs, poking about in
road cuttings, on eroding sea shores, and anywhere else there is a
possibility of finding fossils. In my time I have found thousands upon
thousands of fossils - I recently donated several thousand to a local
museum so that I could reclaim part of my cellar.
I've hunted through deposits from the pre-Cambrian rocks of
Leicestershire to the Pleistocene Cromer Forest Beds. I've searched
through rocks in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Belgium, France,
Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, the USA and Canada. Nowhere have I
found a single fossil inconsistent with the scientific account of
evolution, of geology or any of the related sciences. I have collected
evolutionary sequences of ammonites through the Gault Clay near
Folkstone which show gradual morphological change over time.
I have spent much of my spare time over the past ten years studying a
major group of marine reptiles in considerable detail. This has
involved many hours in museums, handling, measuring and recording
thousands of bones. My database of plesiosaur vertebral measurements
contains records over 2,000 individual vertebrae, and this represents
only a fraction of the fossil bones which have passed through my hands.
I have handled bones of plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs,
pterosaurs, mammals, turtles, fish, crocodiles, birds,
rhynchocephalians, phytosaurs, nothosaurs, squamates, and even those of
ichthyostega.
My experience of that record tells me quite specifically and
categorically that evolution happens, and that there is no evidence
whatsoever for special creation. I have never come across any evidence
whatsoever for a global flood.
Could you please explain to me how I could look *more* closely at the
fossil record?
RF
Ash
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
>
> that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened
> by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
>
>
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
>
and don't just reject it without thought, you see it isn't at all absurd"
Remember, the bible itself says "there is no god"
Ash
> Yes that may be true about Darwin But he did not know how complex the
> eye is. We now know how complex it is and how all of its parts have to
> work together at once in order for you to see.
No they don't. That's why we have colour blindness, or short sightedness
> SO
> What evolved first the cornea or the retina?
>
Ash
> God has always existed. God is not bound by time.
What does that even mean?
John Harshman
Turtles all the way down.
pbx43k
<snip>
> How do you know that it is created in a factory? Did you see it made
> with your own eyes?
think your single-minded devotion to your religion indoctrination has
blinded your common sense.
> The fosil record is evidence for creation. look at it closer.
Holy crap! If you hold the fossil record up real close to your nose and
kinda cross your eyes a little you'll see a 3D Buddy Christ giving you
the thumbs-up!
You forgot something in that post - Evidence. You simply made a
baseless assertion that the fossil record supports your view. Please
explain, in detail, how this is so.
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, needgod.com:
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
Did you know that my feces contain more than one billion epithelial
cells? It MUST MEAN SOMETHING!
rich
No True Statistics were harmed in the making of this post.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
rev.goetz
Nice try, but please do not accuse others of quote mining. The Bible
actually says, "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".
James Goetz
Mujin
jimgo...@yahoo.com says...
I believe his point was that it's the same kind of dishonesty. Kind
of like Isiah 5:11 says "woe be unto those who rise up early in the
morning..."
rich hammett
I'm pretty sure that was irony. I mean, it was _intentional_
irony.
rich
string
> The COLA:
> Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock
> cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed,
> aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years
> later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into
> the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
>
> Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know
> that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is
> designed, there must be a designer.
Then who designed the designer?
> The alternative, that it happened
> by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
>
An intellectual free zone, say.... free as that which exists "beyond
time, space
and understanding?"
>
> The EYE:
> Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
> Charles Darwin said,
>
> "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection,
> seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
>
> The Painting:
>
> When you look at a painting you know that there is a painter.
>
> The Human:
>
> When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
>
Nick Keighley
> needgod.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The EYE:
>
> do you mean the human eye, the primate eye, the mammllian eye...?
>
> > Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing
> > muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains
> > 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?
>
>
> > The Human:
> >
> > When you look at a Human you know there is a Creator.
>
> evolve from (other) apes? Was every creature created by a special act
> by god or did some forms change into others?
whilst no one is obliged to answer any post, and there was not an
on-going
conversation between us; I never-the-less find it telling that a
creationist,
typically, will not answer questions like this.
Essentially they are caught on the horns of a dillema (if they are
bright
enough the undertstand the implications of the questions).
Either there was a single creation event and all life was created at
once. The
fossil record is dismissed. Geology, astronomy and much of current
science
goes with it. A new dark age descends.
Or God intervened many times and created each species as needed. The
fossil
record is a correct if patchy record of this. This position beggers
belief. God
created each species *and arranged it look like common descent*.
Presumably they don't understand (or pretend not too) just how powerful
the
nested hierarchy is. It is common to try and compare it with human
design
which does not of course yield a strict hierarchy. Petrol engines are
used
on boats, aeroplanes and cars even though they are far away from each
other on a nested hirarchy.
Then there's DNA... Why are human beings so similar to other chimps?
Why do we have the same errors and retro-viruses and junk DNA? If god
is
involved then man is a modified ape.
But mostly creationists avoid the horns by ignoring them. I'll let our
Gentle Lukers draw there own conclusions.
--
Nick Keighley
"Using a 64-bit value introduces a new wrap around date in about 290
billion
years, on Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596 15:30:08 UTC. This
problem
is not, however, widely regarded as a pressing issue."
wiki/Year_2038_problem
TomS
<1149076583.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Nick Keighley
stated..."
Let us assume that there really is a methodology to the
analogy of "design".
Then the nested hierarchy of the tree of life is an extremely
complex pattern. One could call it even "complex specified
information". "Specified information", because it predicts, in
advance, that every form of life on earth will fit into a place in
the tree (in anatomy and in biochemistry). And it's a lot more
complex than the anatomy of "the vertebrate eye" (which, by the
way, doesn't make any "risky predictions", but I won't insist on
that).
This pattern of the nested hierarchy in the tree of life (if
we are to believe that there really is a methodology to intelligent
design) was either due to chance (far more unlikely than for "the
eye"), or due to a natural regularity (and common descent seems
to be the only contender), or deliberately and purposefully
designed.
So, was the tree of life deliberately and purposefully
designed to look like there was common descent?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
Nick Keighley
> "On 31 May 2006 04:56:23 -0700, in article
<snip>
> So, was the tree of life deliberately and purposefully
> designed to look like there was common descent?
it was explained to me by someone who couldn't accept evolution that:
"he just did for it the craic (p.crack orig. irish fun, laugh)"
the idea of god just doing it all to wind us up (or at least to wind up
the
foolishly uptight english) was just too cool an idea for me to dispute.
--
Nick Keighley
TomS
<1149089646.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Nick Keighley
stated..."
In other words, another example of omphalism. (For the newcomers,
"omphalism" is the idea that the world was made to look like it was
ancient - Adam and Eve were created with navels, trees with annual
growth rings, and so on. Also known in talk.origins as "Last Tuesday-
ism".)
Stanley Friesen
>My experience of that record tells me quite specifically and
>categorically that evolution happens, and that there is no evidence
>whatsoever for special creation. I have never come across any evidence
>whatsoever for a global flood.
While my fossil hunting is *far* less extensive than yours, I have also
done some.
For instance: a thin carbonaceous shale bearing numerous plant fossils
*below* a 2 m. thick massive limestone bearing fossil aquatic organisms
(crinoids, fusilinids, bivalves &c.). How can needgod explain *that* in
terms of flood geology? [I collected a fair number of the plant
fossils].
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>
>Considering how eyesight of some form is common across almost every species
>on the planet (minus species in zero-light conditions), some type of light
>sensitive "sight" likely emerged pretty soon after nervous and muscular
>systems in early multicellular creatrues 600-500 million years ago.
>
*homologous* across all of those animals (which came as quite a
surprise).
Richard Forrest
Dave Martill (whose name has been bandied about on another thread)
showed me a gastrolith from a dinosaur which contained a fossil
ammonite.
How does flood geology explain *that*?!!
The simple fact is that anyone who has spent any time in the field
collecting fossils, or studying the geology of an area knows beyond any
shadow of a doubt that a global flood cannot account for what is there
for anyone to see. I find it extraordinary that some (though very few)
geologists and palaeontologists adhere to the ridiculous idea of "Flood
Geology". To do so requires such a degree of denial that I doubt the
sanity of any such individual.
RF
Lt. Kizhe Catson
....as the early British geologists figured out, over the period
~1800-1830. And they *started out* as diluvialists (not to mention that
several of the Big Names were preceded by "Rev.")
>....I find it extraordinary that some (though very few)
> geologists and palaeontologists adhere to the ridiculous idea of "Flood
> Geology". To do so requires such a degree of denial that I doubt the
> sanity of any such individual.
-- Kizhe
Earle Jones
"Lt. Kizhe Catson" <lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Stanley Friesen wrote:
> >
> >>"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>needgod.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The fosil record is evidence for creation. look at it closer.
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>My experience of that record tells me quite specifically and
> >>>categorically that evolution happens, and that there is no evidence
> >>>whatsoever for special creation. I have never come across any evidence
> >>>whatsoever for a global flood.
> >>
> >>While my fossil hunting is *far* less extensive than yours, I have also
> >>done some.
> >>
> >>For instance: a thin carbonaceous shale bearing numerous plant fossils
> >>*below* a 2 m. thick massive limestone bearing fossil aquatic organisms
> >>(crinoids, fusilinids, bivalves &c.). How can needgod explain *that* in
> >>terms of flood geology? [I collected a fair number of the plant
> >>fossils].
> >>
> >
> >
> > Dave Martill (whose name has been bandied about on another thread)
> > showed me a gastrolith from a dinosaur which contained a fossil
> > ammonite.
> >
> > How does flood geology explain *that*?!!
*
Flood geology explains everything, except to those of you who are
handicapped by a reasonably scientific education.
Goddiddit, Goddammit!
earle
*
John Harshman
> Stanley Friesen wrote:
>
>>"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>>
>>>needgod.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fosil record is evidence for creation. look at it closer.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>My experience of that record tells me quite specifically and
>>>categorically that evolution happens, and that there is no evidence
>>>whatsoever for special creation. I have never come across any evidence
>>>whatsoever for a global flood.
>>
>>While my fossil hunting is *far* less extensive than yours, I have also
>>done some.
>>
>>For instance: a thin carbonaceous shale bearing numerous plant fossils
>>*below* a 2 m. thick massive limestone bearing fossil aquatic organisms
>>(crinoids, fusilinids, bivalves &c.). How can needgod explain *that* in
>>terms of flood geology? [I collected a fair number of the plant
>>fossils].
>>
>
>
> Dave Martill (whose name has been bandied about on another thread)
> showed me a gastrolith from a dinosaur which contained a fossil
> ammonite.
>
> How does flood geology explain *that*?!!
How does it explain any conglomerates, for that matter, or sedimentary
cobbles in conglomerates especially?
Or, in simpler terms, how does it explain anything at all?
> The simple fact is that anyone who has spent any time in the field
> collecting fossils, or studying the geology of an area knows beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that a global flood cannot account for what is there
> for anyone to see. I find it extraordinary that some (though very few)
> geologists and palaeontologists adhere to the ridiculous idea of "Flood
> Geology". To do so requires such a degree of denial that I doubt the
> sanity of any such individual.
It's merely the strength of their prior commitment to biblical
literalism. Kurt Wise, the most prominent creationist paleontologist,
has said so many times.
Frank J
needgod.com wrote:
> The COLA:
(snip)
If there really were something to irreducible complexity or specified
complexity, we wouldn't need your Cola strawman. Never fear, though,
even Behe and Dembski were in on the joke, too because if there were
someting to Paley's watch, we wouldn't need IC or SC either. They know
that it's still evolution.
Speaking of tabs (as opposed to Tab - does that still exist??), Kenneth
Miller uses it as an anaogy to the fossil record in "Finding Darwin's
God."
You might know Dr. Miller - he's the one who admits that the designer
is God, and that the ID strategy and its creationism ancestors are pure
pseudoscience.
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>>
>> While my fossil hunting is *far* less extensive than yours, I have also
>> done some.
>>
>> For instance: a thin carbonaceous shale bearing numerous plant fossils
>> *below* a 2 m. thick massive limestone bearing fossil aquatic organisms
>> (crinoids, fusilinids, bivalves &c.). How can needgod explain *that* in
>> terms of flood geology? [I collected a fair number of the plant
>> fossils].
>>
>
>Dave Martill (whose name has been bandied about on another thread)
>showed me a gastrolith from a dinosaur which contained a fossil
>ammonite.
Cool. Way cool.
>
>How does flood geology explain *that*?!!
Heck, just looking out the window of an airliner and *seeing* an
anticline more or less in toto, as can be easily done in many places in
the American West, should put paid to any such idiocy.
>
>The simple fact is that anyone who has spent any time in the field
>collecting fossils, or studying the geology of an area knows beyond any
>shadow of a doubt that a global flood cannot account for what is there
>for anyone to see. I find it extraordinary that some (though very few)
>geologists and palaeontologists adhere to the ridiculous idea of "Flood
>Geology". To do so requires such a degree of denial that I doubt the
>sanity of any such individual.
>
Indeed, I would think the same.
John Harshman
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>
>>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>>
>>>While my fossil hunting is *far* less extensive than yours, I have also
>>>done some.
>>>
>>>For instance: a thin carbonaceous shale bearing numerous plant fossils
>>>*below* a 2 m. thick massive limestone bearing fossil aquatic organisms
>>>(crinoids, fusilinids, bivalves &c.). How can needgod explain *that* in
>>>terms of flood geology? [I collected a fair number of the plant
>>>fossils].
>>>
>>
>>Dave Martill (whose name has been bandied about on another thread)
>>showed me a gastrolith from a dinosaur which contained a fossil
>>ammonite.
>
>
> Cool. Way cool.
>
>>How does flood geology explain *that*?!!
>
>
> Heck, just looking out the window of an airliner and *seeing* an
> anticline more or less in toto, as can be easily done in many places in
> the American West, should put paid to any such idiocy.
I like looking at the various mountain ranges that are almost entirely
buried under their own erosion products. I suppose most of them are
fault block ranges.