Why no living examples of evolution?
dh
consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
countless possibilities.
If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
deliberate influence behind it.
Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
dinosaurs began changing into birds?
r norman
Side answer. You are simply confused about where a bird's "knee"
really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
direction.
This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
that long.
TomS
<n3aq769rr9fhvt2uc...@4ax.com>, dh@. stated..."
>
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
>God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
>end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
>countless possibilities.
Then there is the possibility that God exists, is the Creator of
all things, and that natural processes operate in the natural
world.
Processes like reproduction, development, and evolution. I don't
know of many people who feel that reproduction and development
present any threat to belief in God (although there was a time
that they did), but for some reason, the process of evolution is
believed to present a threat.
May I make a couple of friendly suggestions? Lots of us around
here don't like saying that they *believe* in things like the
earth going around the sun once a year or that life on earth has
a history of billions of years. That sort of makes it sound like
there isn't overwhelming evidence for such things. Another is
that everybody should know that there is lots of evidence for
evolution taking place right before our eyes, so much so that
there is even an insistence by many creationists that they accept
that. And finally, I'm reluctant to mention this, but there are a
lot of creationists who try to disarm the "evil-lutionists" by
putting on airs of "I'm an atheist just like you", and that has
made some of the talk.origins denizens a little wary of such
protestations. So don't be surprised if you get some hostile
reactions.
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Malte Runz
Something like this maybe?
http://www.tinyurl.dk/20404
> ... Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
There are hundreds of examples. But even if there were only /one/, it would
be evidence that 'unguided evolution' can result in speciation. And how
would you determine whether it is guided or not? Is God's hand visible when
he manipulates matter and creates new kinds? Or do you expect it to happen
like in the cartoon.
>
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
What you might think is the bird's knee is its heel.
--
Malte Runz
chris thompson
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
> countless possibilities.
>
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
Why would you think feathers would evolve more than once?
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
Ever seen a flying squirrel?
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
Why would you think they should evolve homeothermy? And alligators and
crocodiles do tend their nests, and do feed their young.
> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
Why not? Do you think moving from an aquatic lifestyle to a
terrestrial one is a matter of a few generations?
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
Ever seen a sea lion? Compare their rear flippers to those of an
earless seal.
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
Your problem is that you are assuming evolution is goal-oriented.
Thus, you feel that all reptiles are trying to evolve into birds or
mammals, or all fish are trying to become terrestrial organisms (or
they should be). This is the obsolete ladder view of evolution, that
all organisms are striving to reach some goal (like homeothermy). In
fact, the scales of fish and the leathery integument of crocodile
bellies and the unique cross-circulation of crocodiles are just as
much endpoints (or intermediates, if you like) of evolution as
feathers and hair and complete separation of systemic and pulmonary
circulatory systems.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
> it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc...
Hmm, you might find this "etc" interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/tests/Mistery_skel.jpg
care to guess what it is a skeleton of?
odin
>
> > ... Even if there were only a
> > few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> > extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> > deliberate influence behind it.
>
> There are hundreds of examples. But even if there were only /one/, it would
> be evidence that 'unguided evolution' can result in speciation. And how
> would you determine whether it is guided or not? Is God's hand visible when
> he manipulates matter and creates new kinds? Or do you expect it to happen
> like in the cartoon.
>
>
>
> > Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> > have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> > while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> > legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> > dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> What you might think is the bird's knee is its heel.
Stupid error, yes, but still a very common heel jerk reaction.
odin
Seal?
odin
Yes... I just checked google images search on seal skeleton... That
pretty well seals it.
Friar Broccoli
Why is there a picture of Sarah Palin in there?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<dh@.> wrote in message news:n3aq769rr9fhvt2uc...@4ax.com...
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
Which one?
> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
> countless possibilities.
So does the "Theory of Peter Pan".
He "might exists",
and, accoding to my home insurance salesman .... my house MIGHT be hit by a
tornado, and earthquake, a fire, a flood, ants, termites, increasing
property values, decreasing property values, an explosion, etc. etc. etc..
that's why, he thinks, I need thousands of dollars worth of insurance.
I should go out and buy some condoms .......... at 64 years of age, there is
still the possibility that I MIGHT get lucky .... and a beautiful, 18 year
old virgin, would be "hot for my bod' ".
>
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation.
Evolution is a scientifically supported reality.
Injecting a god ...... ANY god, into that reaality, is nothing more than
fantasy.
You can start out with "if god exists" - and go in a million, billion,
different directions.
It only makes any sense if, first, you actually prove ANY god exists.
Since no one ever has overcome that problem, any speculation concerning any
god is totally meaningless.
I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did.
It is not a matter of "belief" - that's for religions; and science isn't a
religon.
It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help.
Now THAT'S a belief!
For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
>
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
I'm not sure of those particular details either ...... but that only means
I'm uneducated (in that area) ... not that "god did it".
I'll have to look that up. It's something I never thought about.
Of course, I'll look in a science book (or internet area) ..... and not the
bible.
John Harshman
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
> countless possibilities.
>
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence.
Could you be specific? Which steps are too great, and why?
> For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc...
That requires the odd assumption that there is some canonical path of
advancement followed by all things, so that reptiles are always trying
to turn into birds. All this feather stuff happened long ago. There are
nice fossils of the process. But why should it be happening now? You
might expect to find some kind of transition happening, but not any
specific one.
> The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures
You mean like otters, seals, dugongs, and whales? See what a nice series
of intermediates that makes?
> and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either.
Sorry, but why don't mudskippers count? That's a stage. They probably
aren't going any further. For one thing, the land as you may have noted
is already full of tetrapods, so there is no longer any big opportunity
attached to becoming terrestrial.
> The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples.
That's because you don't recognize the examples. Nobody knows what's
going to happen. You can't recognize an intermediate until you see the
end points, i.e. after the transformation has happened. Anything could
be an intermediate. You've mentioned some, and so have I.
> Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
No, it's just evidence that you can't recognize a transition until it's
over.
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
Maybe, but you are making a major error. The "knees" you see in birds
are really their ankles. Their real knees are hidden inside their body
feathers. Ancient dinosaurs also walked on their toes with their ankles
in the air, even T. rex. Some had longer tarsi than others. The ones
closest to birds had some of the longer ones, but it isn't a major clue.
However, we can narrow down bird relationships; the dinosaurs called
dromaeosaurs and troodontids are the closest.
cassandra
If I understand your point correctly, you see God or other
supernatural force(s) as a necessary solution to some features about
living things that natural evolutionary processes can't explain.
From that, I offer two points.
First, it's good to think skeptically and ask questions. A problem is
you express your concerns about evolution only, and say nothing about
about geology, astronomy, physics, or any other part of science. It
seems to me a sincere skeptic should doubt all of science, and not
limit himself to just evolutionary theory. That kind of narrow focus
is characteristic of anti-evolution theology.
Second, the problems you mention aren't from any weakness in
evolutionary processes, but are from a weakness in your knowledge of
them. Since your presumptive "deliberate influence" doesn't explain
anything, I hope you will stop using it as a catchall solution, and
apply your skeptical energies to finding real answers.
HTH
chris thompson
>
> Why is there a picture of Sarah Palin in there?
Because when moose season ends in Alaska, she puts down her rifle to
go club some baby seals.
Chris
chris thompson
snip
>
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
Go to the supermarket. Buy a raw, while chicken. Look at the
articulations on the thigh and the drumstick. Look at where the thigh
attaches to the body. It's all the same.
Likewise, if you have a dog or a cat, take a close look at their hind
legs. It kind of looks like their knees are backwards also, until you
realize their paws are in reality their toes. Most of the hind foot is
off the ground, all the time. This reduction in the surface area
making contact with the ground is generally considered an adaptation
for running- bursts of speed in felines, and long-distance running in
the canids.
Chris
In His glory
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
love or perish in everlasting torment. Think of it like swimming
the English Channel, only without all the bile from that
wretched country with the woman Pope (Can you say, "Whore
of Babylon?" I thought you could!). There is no half way. You
either swim the channel or you drown in the middle. Well an
agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
John Harshman
More important, I think, than the reduction of area in contact with the
ground is the addition of another section of leg, which allows a greater
traverse per step, and another spring.
John Harshman
Go away. The joke is no longer in any way amusing. You're boring,
boorish, and stupid.
Frank J
Ken Miller accepts God completely, even Jesus Christ as his savior.
Will he make it to God's kingdom?
Mike Behe accepts common descent and admitted under oath that the
intelligent designer could be deceased. Will he make it to God's
kingdom?
John Harshman
chris thompson
Excellent point. Thank you.
Might I mention the floating scapula at this point? Were it not for
this adaptation, this, I think, would never have happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHvR7K1btQ
Chris
Chris
r norman
The technical terms are the change from plantigrade to digitigrade
and, ultimately unguligrade locomotion corresponding to putting the
sole of the foot flat on the ground (as do humans and bears) to
running on tiptoe (cats and dogs) to running as ballerinas 'on point'
on the tips of the toenails (ungulates like horses and antelope).
The scapula is not the critical adaptation: the hind legs don't have
corresponding flexible pelvis and hopping animals (rabbits, kangaroos)
have the same adaptation in the hind legs to extend their length.
Flexibility of the spine, as in cheetahs, is probably as important as
the scapula.
There is also a reduction in tissue mass of lower parts of the legs,
an adaptation that reduces the moment of inertia and allows a more
rapid swing.
Opus7x
Check out my video showing the reality of the woodpecker and how it
cannot have evolved! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpOTuMvvZQ
I hope this helps!!
bpuharic
<forgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
>There's no half way in God's kingdom.
there is such a thing as half assed.
need i say more?
>
bpuharic
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
>evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
>of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
>happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
>appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
>that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
>appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
>without deliberate influence.
what does this mean? 'appear to be too great'?? uh, what does
'appear' mean?
useless statement
For another, it seems that if it
>happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers
there are. check the hawthorne fruit fly. so another prediction of
evolution...which you wanted to see demonsrated...has, indeed, been
demonstrated
, and
>others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
>mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
>creatures...etc...etc..
how would you recognize these in real time?
gotta say...your post makes no sense.
you havent done your homework
Will in New Haven
> > I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> > consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
> love or perish in everlasting torment.
Cause He's (you forgot to capilalize that "his," brother, prepare to
sizzle) a sadistic asshole who HAS to know that he has planted a ton
of evidence for the natural world's being self-sufficient? Because
he's going to punish people who DO have faith in god for being raised
in a culture where god isn't exactly the way he wants himself
portrayed?
Because he's in YOUR image and you are a sadistic asshole.
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
Will in New Haven
Please check out my website, designed to help people such as yourself.
http://www.gettafuckingeducationyouabysmalmoron.com
macaddicted
Darwin123
> Why is there a picture of Sarah Palin in there?
Which picture of Sarah Palin?
Don Cates
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
> direction.
>
Well, the ones that *have* legs.
> This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
> biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
> of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
> fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> that long.
>
>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
cassandra
> r norman wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
<snippy>
> >> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> >> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> >> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> >> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> >> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> > Side answer. You are simply confused about where a bird's "knee"
> > really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
> > direction.
>
> Well, the ones that *have* legs.
And the ones that don't aren't tetrapods. QED.
Burkhard
Unless they merely lost them in an industrial accident.
Friar Broccoli
> On Aug 31, 3:13 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is there a picture of Sarah Palin in there?
.
> Which picture of Sarah Palin?
The pictures have changed since yesterday. I have a very wide screen,
but I now see her image four rows up from the bottom in the middle:
http://www.planetdinosaur.com/dinosaur_list/images/torosaurus_skeleton_web.jpg
Nick Keighley
Ernest Major
<691b5bce-cd3a-412b...@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
cassandra <cassand...@gmail.com> writes
reptiles.
--
alias Ernest Major
John S. Wilkins
And they are all tetrapods. Snakes etc. just have legs in an unusual
manner...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
r norman
I thought of all this immediately after clicking "send".
The correct statement would be more like "All tetrapod knees and
ankles bend the same direction". Now someone will complain that knees
don't bend the same direction as ankles!
cassandra
> In message
> <691b5bce-cd3a-412b-b343-015540ea7...@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Aug 31, 11:15 pm, Don Cates <caHORMEL...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >> r norman wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> ><snippy>
>
> >> >> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> >> >> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> >> >> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> >> >> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> >> >> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> >> > Side answer. You are simply confused about where a bird's "knee"
> >> > really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
> >> > direction.
>
> >> Well, the ones that *have* legs.
>
> >And the ones that don't aren't tetrapods. QED.
>
> Snakes. Assorted other lizards. Cetaceans. Various extinct marine
> reptiles.
I admit Don Cate's point slithered through my fingers. Mea culpa.
Walter Bushell
<a223a1e7-7719-4939...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is there a picture of Sarah Palin in there?
>
> Because when moose season ends in Alaska, she puts down her rifle to
> go club some baby seals.
>
> Chris
A baby seal walks into a bar.
"What'll you have?" asks the bar tender.
Anything, but Candian Club on the rocks.
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Nick Keighley
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 03:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>
>
>
>
>
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 1 Sep, 05:42, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 31, 11:15 pm, Don Cates <caHORMEL...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >> > r norman wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> <snippy>
>
> >> > >> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> >> > >> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> >> > >> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> >> > >> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> >> > >> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> >> > > Side answer. You are simply confused about where a bird's "knee"
> >> > > really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
> >> > > direction.
>
> >> > Well, the ones that *have* legs.
>
> >> And the ones that don't aren't tetrapods. QED.
>
> >snakes
>
> I thought of all this immediately after clicking "send".
to be honest i thought you were joking!
Dick C.
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence.
I think that your major problem is simply a lack of knowledge in
seemingly small areas. But these areas lead to gross misunderstanding.
First of all, there is no reason for the same features to keep evolving
time after time. Evolution occurs because of random mutation and
selection from the environment. Not aimed at any goal.
For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
>
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
r norman
Not this time. Finding knees that bend the wrong way is a common
misperception held by many people. But not those who took my intro
biology course and went through the fetal pig lab. All of those
people should know how to find the knees and ankles (front and rear)
of their dogs and cats. Birds should be a simple extrapolation.
Incidentally, they all should also know about plantigrade and
digitigrade and unguligrade and what those adaptations serve.
This happens to be one of my pet teaching points.
Friar Broccoli
Any chance of having a discussion about evolution with you? Or are
you send only?
Dick C.
>
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers,
It seems to me that your misunderstanding is due to a lack of
knowledge in seemingly small areas. Let me help correct that
for you.
First of all, there is no reason for the same features to evolve
time after time. As a matter of fact, if some organsim already
exists to fill the niche you are thinking of, others probably will
not evolve to enter that niche, and includes feathered animals.
Secondly, birds did not evolve from reptiles. Birds evovled from
one branch of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles over 225
million years ago (mya). Sometime after that they apparently evolved
feathers. Birds evovled apparently over 100 mya, after feathers evolved.
As a matter of fact, there is some thought that a lot of non avian
dinosaurs had feathers, including tyronasaurus rex.
Thus birds have been around a long time, and reptiles even longer,
but reptiles never developed feathers. Why should they do so now?
Besides, having feathers would be detrimental in most instances,
since reptiles live close to the ground the feathers would just
pick up dirt and interfere with movement. And since reptiles also
depend on the air to warm them up, the feathers would cause problems
with thermal regulation.
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
As far as the legs go, all mammals, avian, and reptiles have the same
basic leg plan. Hell, we all have the same body plan.
What is different is how the leg and foot is configured, and how the
various animals walk.
Man walks using his full foot. Put heel down, roll foward on the sole,
and then push off with the toes. Birds, and many other predators walk
on their toes. This moves the heel up the leg, creating the illusion
that the knee bends backwards. It doesn't, it is just close to the body.
And just to confuse things hooved animals walk on their toenails.
For more information go to www.talkorigins.org. A lot of info is there.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Check out my video showing the reality of the woodpecker and how it
> cannot have evolved! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpOTuMvvZQ
Of course woodpeckers didn't evolve, they had to be carved.
> I hope this helps!!
Not anyone interested in science it won't. But it's been blocked
because of copyright infringement.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
dh
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 31, 12:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
>> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
>> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
>> countless possibilities.
>>
>> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
>> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
>> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
>> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
>> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
>> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
>> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
>> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
>> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>
>Why would you think feathers would evolve more than once?
I would think that they did evolve more than once, but not
all of the examples survived to present day. I would also think
that if they did evolve more than once, there should always be
examples of them in different stages of doing so if evolution
only happens by itself.
>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>
>Ever seen a flying squirrel?
Flying squirrels are not begginning to grow wings
>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>
>Why would you think they should evolve homeothermy?
It seems there's evidence that some of them did.
>And alligators and
>crocodiles do tend their nests, and do feed their young.
They don't set their nests, nor do they feed their young like
birds do if at all.
>> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
>> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>
>Why not? Do you think moving from an aquatic lifestyle to a
>terrestrial one is a matter of a few generations?
I wasn't aware of this when I made the original post, but
just happened across it when searching for how long mudskippers
have been around:
_________________________________________________________
.. . .
So why are lungfish or mudskippers not relevant? Because hundreds
of millions of years have passed.
An impediment to understanding the fin-limb transition has been
the nature of available evidence from the sister group of
tetrapods. The closest living relatives of tetrapods --
lungfishes and coelacanths -- either lack homologous elements to
distal limb bones or are so specialized that comparisons with
tetrapods are uncertain.
Mudskippers belong to a different branch.
.. . .
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/fos.news.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
>> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
>
>Ever seen a sea lion? Compare their rear flippers to those of an
>earless seal.
Not good enough for me. What else?
>> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
>> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
>> deliberate influence behind it.
>
>Your problem is that you are assuming evolution is goal-oriented.
No I'm not.
>Thus, you feel that all reptiles are trying to evolve into birds or
>mammals,
No I don't.
>or all fish are trying to become terrestrial organisms (or
>they should be).
No I don't.
dh
<cassand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 31, 12:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
>> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
>> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
>> countless possibilities.
>>
>> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
>> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
>> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
>> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
>> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
>> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
>> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
>> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
>> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
>> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
>> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
>> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
>> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
>> deliberate influence behind it.
>
>If I understand your point correctly, you see God or other
>supernatural force(s) as a necessary solution to some features about
>living things that natural evolutionary processes can't explain.
>From that, I offer two points.
>
>First, it's good to think skeptically and ask questions. A problem is
>you express your concerns about evolution only, and say nothing about
>about geology, astronomy, physics, or any other part of science. It
>seems to me a sincere skeptic should doubt all of science, and not
>limit himself to just evolutionary theory. That kind of narrow focus
>is characteristic of anti-evolution theology.
You don't know what else I question, but simply assume I
question nothing else for some unimaginable (from my pov) reason
of your own. Even if I did question nothing else, the things I
pointed out about evolution remain regardless of whether I
question other things or not.
>Second, the problems you mention aren't from any weakness in
>evolutionary processes, but are from a weakness in your knowledge of
>them. Since your presumptive "deliberate influence" doesn't explain
>anything, I hope you will stop using it as a catchall solution, and
>apply your skeptical energies to finding real answers.
So far my points and questions remain as they did before your
reply.
dh
<forgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
>There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
>love or perish in everlasting torment.
. . .
>Well an
>agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
I've asked God to be my Lord and accepted Jesus as my savior
if they exist, but since if they do exist they have not given me
reason to have actual faith that they do I feel it's best for me
not to lie and pretend they have. So from my pov you are doing
Satan's bidding by trying to get me to pretend something that's
not true about my relationship with God. You encourage me to lie
and probably other people as well, so don't think the beast has
no influence on you. In fact you probably do believe he has no
influence, which I've no doubt is what he would want you to
believe so you won't bother to change.
tg
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT), In His glory
>
> > dh@. wrote:
> >> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> >> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> >There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
> >love or perish in everlasting torment.
>
> . . .
>
> >Well an
> >agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
>
> I've asked God to be my Lord and accepted Jesus as my savior
How do we know that this is true?
-tg
John Harshman
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:53:46 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 12:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>>> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
>>> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
>>> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
>>> countless possibilities.
>>>
>>> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
>>> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
>>> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
>>> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
>>> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
>>> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
>>> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
>>> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
>>> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>>> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>> Why would you think feathers would evolve more than once?
>
> I would think that they did evolve more than once, but not
> all of the examples survived to present day.
"Why would you think that?" was the question. Still is.
> I would also think
> that if they did evolve more than once, there should always be
> examples of them in different stages of doing so if evolution
> only happens by itself.
Thus Sinosauropteryx.
>>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>> Ever seen a flying squirrel?
>
> Flying squirrels are not begginning to grow wings
How do you know that?
>>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>> Why would you think they should evolve homeothermy?
>
> It seems there's evidence that some of them did.
>
>> And alligators and
>> crocodiles do tend their nests, and do feed their young.
>
> They don't set their nests, nor do they feed their young like
> birds do if at all.
If by "set" you mean "sit", well of course they don't, since their
bodies wouldn't provide heat. Instead they carefully tend nests of
rotting vegetation in order to keep the temperature constant. ANd yes,
they do feed their young.
>>> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
>>> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
>>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>> Why not? Do you think moving from an aquatic lifestyle to a
>> terrestrial one is a matter of a few generations?
>
> I wasn't aware of this when I made the original post, but
> just happened across it when searching for how long mudskippers
> have been around:
> _________________________________________________________
> .. . .
> So why are lungfish or mudskippers not relevant? Because hundreds
> of millions of years have passed.
>
> An impediment to understanding the fin-limb transition has been
> the nature of available evidence from the sister group of
> tetrapods. The closest living relatives of tetrapods --
> lungfishes and coelacanths -- either lack homologous elements to
> distal limb bones or are so specialized that comparisons with
> tetrapods are uncertain.
>
> Mudskippers belong to a different branch.
> .. . .
> http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/fos.news.html
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Nothing in there about how long mudskippers have been around. By
"different branch" that means actinopterygians, ray-finned fish. Not
just mudskippers. And of course they aren't closely related to
tetrapods. You were asking for part-way evolution, not ancestors.
>>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>>> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
>>> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
>> Ever seen a sea lion? Compare their rear flippers to those of an
>> earless seal.
>
> Not good enough for me. What else?
No, not a good enough response. Why aren't they good enough for you? And
what about sea otters?
>>> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
>>> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
>>> deliberate influence behind it.
>> Your problem is that you are assuming evolution is goal-oriented.
>
> No I'm not.
Yes you are, whether you realize it or not. Species, according to you,
should be trying to evolve into something else. That's goal-oriented.
>> Thus, you feel that all reptiles are trying to evolve into birds or
>> mammals,
>
> No I don't.
Then why do you find it surprising that there are no modern examples of
reptiles trying to evolve into mammals?
>> or all fish are trying to become terrestrial organisms (or
>> they should be).
>
> No I don't.
Then why do you find it surprising that ther eare no modern examples of
fish trying to become terrestrial organisms? You aren't making sense here.
chris thompson
A somewhat better question might be, "Why do you think you should be
alive to see it happening?"
>
> > I would also think
> > that if they did evolve more than once, there should always be
> > examples of them in different stages of doing so if evolution
> > only happens by itself.
>
> Thus Sinosauropteryx.
>
> >>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> >> Ever seen a flying squirrel?
>
> > Flying squirrels are not beginning to grow wings
>
> How do you know that?
Really.
(Addressed to the OP, not you, John.)
Funny, when I look at
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_species.php?id=2483
(That's _Glaucomys_, probably a North American flying squirrel.)
I see reduction of the hind limb bones and elongations of the digits-
rather similar to what we see in bats. The selection pressures for
flying mammals are extreme, and while there is no way to predict what
evolution might produce, it makes sense that the hind limb bones would
get smaller, while the digits of the forelimbs (which, when spread out
with a membrane between them) would increase lift.
If you have an alternate explanation, I am ready to hear it.
Not to mention _Chrysopelea_.
>
> >>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> >> Why would you think they should evolve homeothermy?
>
> > It seems there's evidence that some of them did.
>
> >> And alligators and
> >> crocodiles do tend their nests, and do feed their young.
>
> > They don't set their nests, nor do they feed their young like
> > birds do if at all.
>
> If by "set" you mean "sit", well of course they don't, since their
> bodies wouldn't provide heat. Instead they carefully tend nests of
> rotting vegetation in order to keep the temperature constant. ANd yes,
> they do feed their young.
Maybe he means they don't dig up worms to give to the nestlings.
> >>> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> >>> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> >>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> >> Why not? Do you think moving from an aquatic lifestyle to a
> >> terrestrial one is a matter of a few generations?
>
> > I wasn't aware of this when I made the original post, but
> > just happened across it when searching for how long mudskippers
> > have been around:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > .. . .
> > So why are lungfish or mudskippers not relevant? Because hundreds
> > of millions of years have passed.
>
> > An impediment to understanding the fin-limb transition has been
> > the nature of available evidence from the sister group of
> > tetrapods. The closest living relatives of tetrapods --
> > lungfishes and coelacanths -- either lack homologous elements to
> > distal limb bones or are so specialized that comparisons with
> > tetrapods are uncertain.
>
> > Mudskippers belong to a different branch.
> > .. . .
> >http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/fos.news.html
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> Nothing in there about how long mudskippers have been around. By
> "different branch" that means actinopterygians, ray-finned fish. Not
> just mudskippers. And of course they aren't closely related to
> tetrapods. You were asking for part-way evolution, not ancestors.
Warning Will Robinson! Warning! We have a goal-post shift!
>
> >>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> >>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> >>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> >>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> >>> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> >>> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> >> Ever seen a sea lion? Compare their rear flippers to those of an
> >> earless seal.
>
> > Not good enough for me. What else?
>
> No, not a good enough response. Why aren't they good enough for you? And
> what about sea otters?
And, as you pointed out else-thread, dugongs, whales, and manatees. I
would insert sea snakes here, too.
>
> >>> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> >>> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> >>> deliberate influence behind it.
> >> Your problem is that you are assuming evolution is goal-oriented.
>
> > No I'm not.
>
> Yes you are, whether you realize it or not. Species, according to you,
> should be trying to evolve into something else. That's goal-oriented.
When in fact, over millions of years, selection (and other processes)
have made them evolve into what they _are_...because that's what has
worked for them.
>
> >> Thus, you feel that all reptiles are trying to evolve into birds or
> >> mammals,
>
> > No I don't.
>
> Then why do you find it surprising that there are no modern examples of
> reptiles trying to evolve into mammals?
>
> >> or all fish are trying to become terrestrial organisms (or
> >> they should be).
>
> > No I don't.
>
> Then why do you find it surprising that there are no modern examples of
> fish trying to become terrestrial organisms? You aren't making sense here.
All in all, you said it all much better than I could have. Thank you.
Chris
cassandra
You're correct that I don't know what you might question in the
future, or what you might have questioned in the past. Neither are
relevant to your post or to my reply. I replied to the questions in
your post, so I assumed nothing. You wrote them so you own them.
It's not my problem that you choose to backpeddle when I call you on
them.
>Second, the problems you mention aren't from any weakness in
> >evolutionary processes, but are from a weakness in your knowledge of
> >them. Since your presumptive "deliberate influence" doesn't explain
> >anything, I hope you will stop using it as a catchall solution, and
> >apply your skeptical energies to finding real answers.
>
> So far my points and questions remain as they did before your
> reply.
So you say, but you won't convince too many around here that way. So
far your style and lack of substance are identical with others who
confuse their perception of truth with reality.
chris thompson
>
Fascinating. You claim to be an agnostic, but you have no hesitation
about invoking Satan. You even refer to Satan as "the beast"- not
something done by those who are not fundamentalists of one stripe or
another.
Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
Chris
Eric Root
> On Aug 31, 12:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> > consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> > have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> > while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> > legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> > dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> cannot have evolved! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpOTuMvvZQ
>
How could it help, since it is untrue?
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Sep 1, 2:29 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT), In His glory
>
> > <forgod1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > dh@. wrote:
> > >> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> > >> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> > >There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
> > >love or perish in everlasting torment.
>
> > . . .
>
> > >Well an
> > >agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
>
> > I've asked God to be my Lord and accepted Jesus as my savior
> > if they exist, but since if they do exist they have not given me
> > reason to have actual faith that they do I feel it's best for me
> > not to lie and pretend they have. So from my pov you are doing
> > Satan's bidding by trying to get me to pretend something that's
> > not true about my relationship with God. You encourage me to lie
> > and probably other people as well, so don't think the beast has
> > no influence on you. In fact you probably do believe he has no
> > influence, which I've no doubt is what he would want you to
> > believe so you won't bother to change.
>
> Fascinating. You claim to be an agnostic, but you have no hesitation
> about invoking Satan.
What is odd about that? Satan is a very useful metaphor/myth,
especially when talking to People of the Book (not that In His Glory
is anything other than a particularly lame Loki).
> You even refer to Satan as "the beast"- not
> something done by those who are not fundamentalists of one stripe or
> another.
>
He could be just being poetic; he admitted he's Christian, just that
he has felt no spiritual confirmation.
> Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
> to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
>
> Chris
Eric Root
guscubed
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT), In His glory
>
> > dh@. wrote:
> >> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> >> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> >There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
> >love or perish in everlasting torment.
>
> . . .
>
> >Well an
> >agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
>
> I've asked God to be my Lord and accepted Jesus as my savior
> if they exist, but since if they do exist they have not given me
> reason to have actual faith that they do I feel it's best for me
> not to lie and pretend they have. So from my pov you are doing
> Satan's bidding by trying to get me to pretend something that's
> not true about my relationship with God.
You claim to be a weak agnostic when it comes to belief in the
Christian God (and his split personalities), but your statements:
>You encourage me to lie
> and probably other people as well, so don't think the beast has
> no influence on you. In fact you probably do believe he has no
> influence, which I've no doubt is what he would want you to
> believe so you won't bother to change.
certainly imply to me that you have less doubt about the existence of
Satan or 'the beast'. So by your own admission you are a Satanist.
chris thompson
Sure, but wouldn't an agnostic be more likely to refute assertions
based on facts, rather than mythic characters?
>
> > You even refer to Satan as "the beast"- not
> > something done by those who are not fundamentalists of one stripe or
> > another.
>
> He could be just being poetic; he admitted he's Christian, just that
> he has felt no spiritual confirmation.
How do you reconcile being Christian with being agnostic? That seems
like a rather serious cognitive dissonance to me.
Chris
Malte Runz
/You/ are a transitional creature between you grandparents and whatever your
future descendants might turn into.
It would certantly help a lot, if you could describe a (hypothetical)
creature that fits your bill (!). What do you expect to see? A cat giving
birth to a kitten with half-developed wings that it can't use for flying
yet? Reptiles with both gills and lungs living in tidal basins? A hippo with
three flippers? Worms with little feet preparing to become full-fledged
tetrapods in a generation or two?
How fast should such a speciation happen to satisfy you, and how would you
determine whether their evolution is guided by a god, or happening on its
own?
--
Malte Runz
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
It sounds like we have a Behe-wannabe (a wannabehe?). An old-earther
who accepts common descent, but will not accept evolution until the
whereabouts of every atom in every organism during every nanosecond of
the last 4 billion years is known. One who is "undecided" on the
identity/identities of biological designer(s) (and creator(s) if
different), but accepts Jesus as his savior "just in case he exists."
Frank J
That particular example is unusual among evolution-deniers, but almost
all of them think they can have it both ways with something.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
> > > to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
>
> > > Chris
>
> > Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
odin
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Same as being a Keynesian, Freudian, or Pythagorean while being
religiously agnostic about it. You can follow teachings without being
stupid about it. Well, with the exception of Freudian... that is just
flat out stupid all on its own.
TomS
<4244f7ed-b6fc-4ca5...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, chris
thompson stated..."
I have become suspicious of people who, in their first message to t.o,
claim to be agnostic/atheistic/whatever but have this one little
problem with evolution.
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Nick Keighley
> On Sep 1, 10:17 pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 1, 2:29 pm, dh@. wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT), In His glory
> > > > <forgod1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > dh@. wrote:
> > > > >> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> > > > >> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> > > > >There's no half way in God's kingdom. You either accept his
> > > > >love or perish in everlasting torment.
> >
> > > > >Well an
> > > > >agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
what about the atheists?
> > > > I've asked God to be my Lord and accepted Jesus as my savior
> > > > if they exist, but since if they do exist they have not given me
> > > > reason to have actual faith that they do I feel it's best for me
> > > > not to lie and pretend they have. So from my pov you are doing
> > > > Satan's bidding by trying to get me to pretend something that's
> > > > not true about my relationship with God. You encourage me to lie
> > > > and probably other people as well, so don't think the beast has
> > > > no influence on you. In fact you probably do believe he has no
> > > > influence, which I've no doubt is what he would want you to
> > > > believe so you won't bother to change.
>
> > > Fascinating. You claim to be an agnostic, but you have no hesitation
> > > about invoking Satan.
it *does* read a little oddly. He doesn't believe in Jesus or god but
seems quite convinced of satan
> > What is odd about that? Satan is a very useful metaphor/myth,
> > especially when talking to People of the Book (not that In His Glory
> > is anything other than a particularly lame Loki).
I was more interssted in dh@ [if google hasn't completly mangled his
name]
> Sure, but wouldn't an agnostic be more likely to refute assertions
> based on facts, rather than mythic characters?
we agnostics form a broad church
:-)
I'm not convinced agnostics are /necessarily/ more rational than
anyone else
> > > You even refer to Satan as "the beast"- not
> > > something done by those who are not fundamentalists of one stripe or
> > > another.
>
> > He could be just being poetic; he admitted he's Christian, just that
> > he has felt no spiritual confirmation.
>
> How do you reconcile being Christian with being agnostic? That seems
> like a rather serious cognitive dissonance to me.
a christian suffering from doubt?
I know someone who describes himself as an atheist-catholic (or was it
catholic-atheist?)
> > > Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
> > > to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
--
Nick Keighley
Aetheist: someone who believes the Michaelson-Morley experiments were
wrong.
r norman
There is no reason whatsoever to be suspicious. Just assume they are
lying and go from there.
Nick Keighley
> "On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
> thompson stated..."
> >Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
> >to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
>
> I have become suspicious of people who, in their first message to t.o,
> claim to be agnostic/atheistic/whatever but have this one little
> problem with evolution.
to be fair evolution isn't that obvious. The simplistic versions that
go about *do* require quite a stretch of imagination. And the nature
of Deep Time is well outside our normal everyday intuitions. The
appearence of design oo extreme fitness for purpose is sometimes quite
stunning. Children often have a belief that things have a purpose.
I held some quite erroneous panadaptionist ideas (that every living is
perfectly adapted to its environment) before TO disabused me
--
Nick Keighley
Satanic-Panadaptionist and Darwinian Jihadist
Frank J
> "On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
Or the pseudoskeptics who start out with "I have no dog in the fight"
then proceed to throw mud at the evolution "dog" while giving a free
pass to all anti-evolution "dogs."
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
> with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
> The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167- Hide quoted text -
cassandra
IBID. And when that leetle problem is with evolution only, it's a
safe bet they will cite no legitmate material basis for their claims.
TomS
<3dbbad28-ed6b-4b56...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Keighley stated..."
What makes me suspicious is the protest about their lack of
religion, as if that is supposed to ingratiate them with the
evolutionists.
odin
Burkhard
Let me illuminiferous you. It's not about accepting the son of Erebus
and Nyx as your personal saviour.
odin
Thanks. I just needed that frame of reference.
William Morse
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
>> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
>> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
>> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
>> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
>
> really is. All tetrapods have knees and ankles that bend the same
> direction.
>
> This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
> biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
> of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
> fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> that long.
>
Well I do. It will give me time to reread "Species: A History of the
Idea", and maybe on the second go round I will comprehend the discussion:-)
r norman
That time period will only get you through the first three chapters.
The first two if you tend to fall asleep easily.
Walter Bushell
<a5fae8e6-8e66-4345...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you reconcile being Christian with being agnostic? That seems
> like a rather serious cognitive dissonance to me.
>
> Chris
All true Christians are agnostic. The accept God on faith, because they
can't know. ST. Paul was very clear on the need for faith, and if faith
is needed then DOG cannot be proven by reason or firm inference.
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
John S. Wilkins
> r norman wrote:
...
> > This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
> > biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
> > of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
> > fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> > something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> > few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> > that long.
> >
>
> Well I do. It will give me time to reread "Species: A History of the
> Idea", and maybe on the second go round I will comprehend the discussion:-)
Wait for the movie...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John Harshman
Theory" in between chapters?
cassandra
Does it have pictures?
John Harshman
John S. Wilkins
> cassandra wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 9:57 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> r norman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:51:43 -0400, William Morse
> >>> <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> r norman wrote:
...
> >>>>> This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
> >>>>> biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
> >>>>> of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
> >>>>> fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> >>>>> something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> >>>>> few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> >>>>> that long.
> >>>> Well I do. It will give me time to reread "Species: A History of the
> >>>> Idea", and maybe on the second go round I will comprehend the
> >>>> discussion:-)
> >>> That time period will only get you through the first three chapters.
> >>> The first two if you tend to fall asleep easily.
> >> Why not fight drowsiness by reading "The Structure of Evolutionary
> >> Theory" in between chapters?
> >
> > Does it have pictures?
> >
> Not enough.
Mine does, so there.
Dick C.
news:3dbbad28-ed6b-4b56...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 Sep, 12:57, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:58:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <4244f7ed-b6fc-4ca5-8919-40158cdb7...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> chris thompson stated..."
>
>> >Would you like to admit your creationist beliefs now, or do you want
>> >to lie some more before it becomes even more obvious?
>>
>> I have become suspicious of people who, in their first message to
>> t.o, claim to be agnostic/atheistic/whatever but have this one little
>> problem with evolution.
>
> to be fair evolution isn't that obvious. The simplistic versions that
> go about *do* require quite a stretch of imagination. And the nature
> of Deep Time is well outside our normal everyday intuitions. The
> appearence of design oo extreme fitness for purpose is sometimes quite
> stunning. Children often have a belief that things have a purpose.
To be realistic regarding t.o., we have seen time and time again that
start as the op did, and then turn out that the poster was a fundie
all along.
OTOH, everyone did answer him politely and provided quite a bit of
information.
>
> I held some quite erroneous panadaptionist ideas (that every living is
> perfectly adapted to its environment) before TO disabused me
>
>
> --
> Nick Keighley
> Satanic-Panadaptionist and Darwinian Jihadist
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Burkhard
wrote:
<snip>
>
> I held some quite erroneous panadaptionist ideas
That's the doctrine that Pandas are he ultimate aim of evolution?
Mike Lyle
> William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Well I do. It will give me time to reread "Species: A History of the
>> Idea", and maybe on the second go round I will comprehend the
>> discussion:-)
>
> Wait for the movie...
That reminds me, I said I'd let you have a few small notes, and of
course failed to deliver. I'm assuming the ground's already been covered
by others who know more than I, and that the paperback is done now,
anyway. But the offer remains. Somewhere, I've got a language note the
OED might like, and I'll get round to that in due course...
--
Mike.
chris thompson
> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > r norman wrote:
> ...
> > > This confusion, or perhaps simply a lack of sufficient knowledge of
> > > biology, is also why you are puzzled about the "absence" of examples
> > > of evolution when examples of such evolution is widespread in the
> > > fossil evidence. And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> > > something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> > > few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> > > that long.
>
> > Well I do. It will give me time to reread "Species: A History of the
> > Idea", and maybe on the second go round I will comprehend the discussion:-)
>
> Wait for the movie...
Is Peter Jackson doing it? He did a great job of those orcs in
Isengard, although he failed to show (as Tolkien wrote) that they were
originally descended (devolved?) from elves.
Chris
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
half...@bfe.inc
wrote:
>In article
><a5fae8e6-8e66-4345...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you reconcile being Christian with being agnostic? That seems
>> like a rather serious cognitive dissonance to me.
>>
>> Chris
>
>All true Christians are agnostic. The accept God on faith, because they
>can't know. ST. Paul was very clear on the need for faith, and if faith
>is needed then DOG cannot be proven by reason or firm inference.
A few days late perhaps but I want to address this.
I feel no conflict with being an agnostic and a Christian.
As there is no evidence for or against the existence of God, I must be
agnostic on the subject, I simply do not know.
Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, a decision not to
believe is perfectly reasonable to me.
Since there is no evidence for the non existence of god and the idea
of God and the teachings of Jesus resonates within me then the
decision to believe is also perfectly reasonable.
It is my choice and is faith and nothing more. I do not ask for any to
agree or disagree with that faith, it is mine alone.
Halfstop
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by half...@bfe.inc:
I suspect that's the position of most rational religious
believers, even if they haven't defined it for themselves.
Fundies, religious and antireligious, feel differently.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
skye...@yahoo.com
<Snip post>
I'd like to address your subject line, "Why no living examples of
evolution?
There are a gazillion examples of evolution going on right under our
noses. Just last week the world learned about a species of lizard,
one population of which lives down on Australia's flatlands, and one
population of which lives up in the mountains, where the conditions
are cold.
The flatlander lizards lay eggs. But the majority of the mountain
lizards give birth to live young. Evolution in action.
If you'd like something a bit more dramatic, consider the Monotremes,
the echidna and the platypus, both mammals...sort of...but both of
whom lay eggs. They're a nice snapshot of life moving from reptile --
> to primitive mammal.
And humans are still evolving, you know. Recent studies have pointed
out that Tibetans, who habitually live in high altitudes, have
developed some pretty specific adaptations for their high mountain
lives. Google it, it's very easy to find.
On Sep 5, 1:10 pm, al_grnas <al_grnas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excuse me!!
> Would you stop for a moment?!
> O...man...
Excuse me????????? I am of the female persuasion.
>Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
I try not to think too often about myself. Don't want to become self-
absorbed.'
> Who has made it?
Who has made what?
> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
Yes, I have, every time I see a snowflake, or a whirling dust-devil,
or a riot of bouganvillia.
> Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker ?!
Yup. Ever seen a bee's wing up close?
> It's you and the whole universe!..
Aw, geez, *here we go*.
> Who has made them all ?!!
Abiogenesis and evolution are responsible for the life forms. The
inert/non-living stuff is pretty much the product of chemistry.
> You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him.
Got any objective, verifiable evidence that this-here Allah feller had
anything to do with anything, or that he *actually exists*?
> Just think for a moment.
Oh, Sparky, I think all the time. A mere moment ain't gonna cut it
for the type of fancy brain-twister's you're working up to.
> How are you going to be after death ?!
After death I'll be dead. My body will decompose if my relatives
don't have it cremated quickly, and my personality and mind, being
functions of my brain, will cease to be once my brain is dead.
> Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of
> these great creation will end in in nothing...just after death!
Yup, I can. Nobody's ever provided one drop of evidence that any part
of human consciousness lives on after death. Somehow I doubt you'll
do that, either.
> Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's
> punishment?!
1. "The soul" has never been shown to exist. It is nothing but a
theological conceit. There is the mind, which is a product of the
brain, and that's all.
And would you kindly provide objective, verifiable evidence that this
allah-character you're so enthusiastic about *actually exists*? Thank
you.
> Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
Yes, yes I have. The conclusion I have come to is thatwhile all
religions cannot be "right," they sure as hell all can be wrong. In
fact, I consider religion to be nothing more than superstition.
> Read ... and think deeply before you answer..
Done the reading, done the thinking. All religions are superstitions,
born when humankind was in its infancey. It's time for humans to grow
up now, and put childish things away.
> It is religion of Islam.
Is just another superstition, although notable in that it's more
barbaric than most.
> It is the religion that Mohammad-peace upon him- the last prophet, had
> been sent by.
Whoever wrote this should take some more English classes - ESL classes
if necessary.
> It is the religion that the right Bible- which is not distorted-has
> preached.
> Just have a look at The Bible of (Bernaba).
> Don't be emstional.
Sparky, I've looked at more bibles and holy books, including a home-
grown American one, than *you* have. They vary only in degree of
irrationality. I give extra points to The Awakened One, as his
scriptures are the most down-to-earth and compassionate, and make the
least use of the supernatural, which is mostly confined to parables.
> Be rational and judge..
Am there. Done that.
> Just look..listen...compare..and then judge and say your word.
My word is this: there's no evidence of *any* god, including your
allah-guy.
And I advise *YOU* to read the book _Why I Am Not a Muslim_ by Ibn
Warraq.
Relax. Have a ham sandwich and a nice glass of beer or wine to wash
it down with. You'll feel much better.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
skye...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:53:46 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 12:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> >> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> >> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
> >> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
> >> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
> >> countless possibilities.
>
> >> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> >> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> >> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> >> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> >> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> >> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> >> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> >> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
> >> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> >> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>
>
> I would think that they did evolve more than once, but not
> all of the examples survived to present day. I would also think
> that if they did evolve more than once, there should always be
> examples of them in different stages of doing so if evolution
> only happens by itself.
>
> >> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>
>
> Flying squirrels are not begginning to grow wings
>
> >> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>
>
> It seems there's evidence that some of them did.
>
> >And alligators and
> >crocodiles do tend their nests, and do feed their young.
>
> They don't set their nests, nor do they feed their young like
> birds do if at all.
If by "set their nests" you mean "sit on their nests while the eggs
hatch," you're correct. However, both female crocs and alligators
*remain by* their nests, guarding it and waiting to hear the calls of
their young as they begin to hatch. The mother will, as necessary,
help them dig their way out of the nest, and several species have been
observed carrying the young down to the water in the female's mouth.
>
> >> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> >> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> >> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>
> >Why not? Do you think moving from an aquatic lifestyle to a
> >terrestrial one is a matter of a few generations?
>
> I wasn't aware of this when I made the original post, but
> just happened across it when searching for how long mudskippers
> have been around:
> _________________________________________________________
> .. . .
> So why are lungfish or mudskippers not relevant? Because hundreds
> of millions of years have passed.
And that makes them not relevant because...why, exactly?
>
> An impediment to understanding the fin-limb transition has been
> the nature of available evidence from the sister group of
> tetrapods. The closest living relatives of tetrapods --
> lungfishes and coelacanths -- either lack homologous elements to
> distal limb bones or are so specialized that comparisons with
> tetrapods are uncertain.
>
> Mudskippers belong to a different branch.
> .. . .http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/fos.news.html
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
We don't know that either the coelocanth line or any modern mud-
skipper line are our direct ancestors, but there's a high degree of
certainty that fish populations belonging in that large group *were*
our ancestors, and the ancestors of all tetrapods.
> >> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> >> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> >> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> >> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> >> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> >> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
>
> >Ever seen a sea lion? Compare their rear flippers to those of an
> >earless seal.
>
> Not good enough for me. What else?
What would be "good enough" for you?
>
> >> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> >> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> >> deliberate influence behind it.
>
> >Your problem is that you are assuming evolution is goal-oriented.
>
> No I'm not.
It's patently obvious that you are assuming just that.
skye...@yahoo.com
> dh@. wrote:
> > I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> > consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
>
> love or perish in everlasting torment.
That's called "extortion."
Your religion, or rather, your particular cult that interprets your
religion that way, is sick and evil, just like your god.
> Think of it like swimming
> the English Channel, only without all the bile from that
> wretched country with the woman Pope (Can you say, "Whore
> of Babylon?" I thought you could!). There is no half way. You
> either swim the channel or you drown in the middle. Well an
> agnostic is someone who drowned in Satan's ocean of lies.
Satan, like God, is just another fictional character out of a
religious myth. Furthermore, the whole consciousness-after-death
thing has no objective evidence to back it up, either.
So you're pretty much 0-for-3, Sparky. Since you're not making any
headway and have no evidence to support your assertions, I'd say now
would be the perfect time for you to chime in with threats.
John Harshman
This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
> So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
> take it into consideration.
Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
it's always possible, if we assume that an omnipotent god exists, that
he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
Friar Broccoli
> dh@. wrote:
>
> This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
> directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
> > So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> > not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> > take it into consideration.
>
> Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
> your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
> he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
> way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
> heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
> planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
> of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
For those of you who were as confused by this post as me, Harshperson
is repling to this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/f180104c04e7fe4c
John Harshman
dh@'s many faults is annoying crossposting.
Louann Miller
news:0lbq76hd8lpvreq2v...@4ax.com:
> And every single modern creature is "becoming"
> something else but we won't know what that something else is until a
> few million years pass. I, for one, don't have the patience to wait
> that long.
>
You might as well ask if movies _really_ work the way people say they do,
since no single frame moves no matter how many of them you examine.
Burkhard
> dh@. wrote:
>
> This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
> directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
> > So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> > not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> > there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
> > take it into consideration.
>
> Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
> your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch?
Urrgh! Mentioning miracles and milk together is a high risk strategy
in a NG that has a poster of the name Ganesh making chance
appearances. It can cause serious gridlock.
dh
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups.
That's not for you to decide.
>That's why I've
>directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
>> So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
>> not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
>> there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
>> take it into consideration.
>
>Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
>your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
>it's always possible, if we assume that an omnipotent god exists,
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make
themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those
particular characteristics to God if he exists.
>that
>he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
>way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
>heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
>planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
>of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
That it is all impersonal is one possibility. There are
countless others however, even if you can't appreciate a single
other one.