The 1st Annual Talk.Origins YEC-OEC Debate
fc...@verizon.net
you actually did some science, but since you don’t, this is it. So
don’t blow it, OK?
As you painfully know, all 20 years of "anything but ‘Darwinism’” big
tent evasion has gotten you is a conservative Christian Bush-appointed
judge calling your nonsense “breathtaking inanity.” And no increase in
the % of evolution-deniers despite being free to peddle your
pseudoscience for the ~99.9% of waking hours that public school
students are not learning evolution. Admit it, the “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policy has been at best a waste of time, and probably much
worse.
You can change that here and now. Decide among yourselves one YEC and
one OEC (preferably an * old life * variant who does not dispute any
mainstream chronology), and have them debate their respective
“theories” * without *, repeat * without *, referring to any problems
with “Darwinism,” “naturalism,” etc. If you want to add more
creationists, such as flat earthers or those who accept common
descent, go for it.
Stick to the whats, whens and hows of the Creator/designer’s actions.
It should be * much * easier than the same old breathtaking inanity.
fc...@verizon.net
Louann Miller
@t11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
> Decide among yourselves one YEC and
> one OEC (preferably an * old life * variant who does not dispute any
> mainstream chronology), and have them debate their respective
> "theories" * without *, repeat * without *, referring to any problems
> with "Darwinism," "naturalism," etc. If you want to add more
> creationists, such as flat earthers or those who accept common
> descent, go for it.
Superman, you are one mean drunk.
I.e. "it's mean to taunt them by suggesting something so obviously
reasonable yet so entirely beyond their capabilities."
Steven L.
I don't think the creationists really care about this, frankly.
Certainly the Discovery Institute doesn't have as its main goal to learn
more about the history of the world we live in--what really took place
and when. Rather, their main goal is to change present-day American
society.
Knocking down evolution is just their way of trying to undercut what
they call "atheistic materialism" (which the rest of us call
"metaphysical naturalism"). That's their true target.
And towards that end, they're employing the well-known political
technique of tossing everything against the wall in hopes that something
will stick: YEC, OEC, ID, etc..
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
The principle of the passage of time derives from the concept of
choosing. A person chooses from alternatives that are in the future,
makes the one alternative the present, and abandons the other
alternatives. So the alternative goes from future to present by
choosing, making choice the principle by which time passes. So the
true measure of time is a sequence of decisions one after another.
Illegal inanity, or the facts of the way things are, you be the judge.
Now lets see the evolutionist notion of time is to measure time by
motion. For instance the earth going round the sun is a year, the
earth rotating its axis is a day, and the handles on the clock going
round is 12 hours. If the clock stands still the measurement shows no
time passes. If we take a high frequency measuring device, taking very
many pictures of the position of the earth very very fast, and if two
pictures in sequence are the same, then the measurement shows no time
passed.
Illegal inanity, or the facts of the way things are, you be the judge.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time:
> The principle of the passage of time derives from the concept of
> choosing. A person chooses from alternatives that are in the future,
> makes the one alternative the present, and abandons the other
> alternatives. So the alternative goes from future to present by
> choosing, making choice the principle by which time passes. So the
> true measure of time is a sequence of decisions one after another.
>
> Illegal inanity, or the facts of the way things are, you be the judge.
>
> Now lets see the evolutionist notion of time is to measure time by
> motion.
?? motion was known before evolution. newton and kepler derived the
laws of planetary motion long before darwin was even born
nando's an idiot.
fc...@verizon.net
Illegal inanity, as you have neatly shown by ranting about
"evolutionists" instead of following the simple request to debate a
*creationist*.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
fc...@verizon.net
> f...@verizon.net wrote:
> > Anti-evolutionists, this thread is your big chance. Not as big as if
> > you actually did some science, but since you don’t, this is it. So
> > don’t blow it, OK?
>
> > As you painfully know, all 20 years of "anything but ‘Darwinism’” big
> > tent evasion has gotten you is a conservative Christian Bush-appointed
> > judge calling your nonsense “breathtaking inanity.” And no increase in
> > the % of evolution-deniers despite being free to peddle your
> > pseudoscience for the ~99.9% of waking hours that public school
> > students are not learning evolution. Admit it, the “don’t ask, don’t
> > tell” policy has been at best a waste of time, and probably much
> > worse.
>
> > You can change that here and now. Decide among yourselves one YEC and
> > one OEC (preferably an * old life * variant who does not dispute any
> > mainstream chronology), and have them debate their respective
> > “theories” * without *, repeat * without *, referring to any problems
> > with “Darwinism,” “naturalism,” etc. If you want to add more
> > creationists, such as flat earthers or those who accept common
> > descent, go for it.
>
> > Stick to the whats, whens and hows of the Creator/designer’s actions.
> > It should be * much * easier than the same old breathtaking inanity.
>
> I don't think the creationists really care about this, frankly.
Of course they don't. My goal is to alert new readers to that.
>
> Certainly the Discovery Institute doesn't have as its main goal to learn
> more about the history of the world we live in--what really took place
> and when. Rather, their main goal is to change present-day American
> society.
Sure.
>
> Knocking down evolution is just their way of trying to undercut what
> they call "atheistic materialism" (which the rest of us call
> "metaphysical naturalism"). That's their true target.
>
> And towards that end, they're employing the well-known political
> technique of tossing everything against the wall in hopes that something
> will stick: YEC, OEC, ID, etc..
And they realize that the only way to do that is to avoid the mistakes
that "classic" creationist organizations make by occasionally
criticizing other brands of creationism.
But unlike the DI folk some of the TO regulars occasionally take pot
shots at other creationists. I doubt that they will expand on those
criticisms with the high visibility of its own thread. But we won't
know for sure unless we give them a clear opportunity to "expel"
themselves.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
measuring time by relative motion only a practical fact, not a true
fact, and found it vile that many of his fellow naturalists considered
relative time to be equal to true time. The evolutionists such as
yourself are these vile naturalists. For instance a practical fact is
that a baby is descendent from his or her parents. But the true fact
is that the baby is created, as we can discern by looking at the
sequence of decisions that is history. And to each of those decisions
we may in principle attribute a spiritual quality, such as love. And
that is why a creationist can judge that their baby is born from love,
but an evolutionist only says their baby is a descentent from them as
the whole truth, and that is very vile.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
gregwrld
Actually, Newton was wrong and so
are you.
Check out The Fabric of the Cosmos
by Brian Greene.
Learn something for once.
gregwrld
nando_r...@yahoo.com
First they said lets explain the entire universe as a single string,
how elegant that would be. At last count they needed at least a
zillion strings for their theory to hold. Its dead in the water as a
theory that explains everything.
Only information theory, in a creationist context, is worthy for
consideration as a fundamental theory about everything.
So first we replace in our theories the particle with information as
the fundamental unit of existence.
Then for instance to look at an adult organism, and ask the question
where did the information that constitutes the organism come from.
In order of share of contribution to information content
1 the environment
2 decisions of the cytoplasmic entities which in animals create the
nervous system
3 dna
Its a well established fact that the most information-efficient way to
organize people is to provide motivational information, rather then
telling them exactly everything they must do precisely, which is very
information costly. Seeing that the cytoplasmic entities are critical
to the buildup of the neural net in animals, we should therefore
suppose that the informationcontent of DNA is largely motivational in
relation to the cytoplasmic entities as decisionmakers. So for example
when the motivational information ¨make a beautiful eye¨ is
transcribed from the DNA it creates a consternation among the
cytoplasmic entities, as would be evidenced by the increase in tempo
and variation in behaviour (variation due to differences in subjective
interpretation of what is beautiful).
Thus the organism is made very efficiently, and, Godwilling, with much
joy in the making.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Wombat
Is it worth ignoring this twat until he learns that attribution is
polite? As it is, his every post seems a studied insult.
Wombat
richardal...@googlemail.com
Actually, most of us just call it "science".
RF
> And towards that end, they're employing the well-known political
> technique of tossing everything against the wall in hopes that something
> will stick: YEC, OEC, ID, etc..
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Kent Paul Dolan
> Is it worth ignoring this twat until he learns
> that attribution is polite? As it is, his every
> post seems a studied insult.
Since nando cannot write a single paragraph that
makes sense either as English or as rational
thought, he deserves a place of honor in your
kill-file. I habitually kill all threads started
with a posting by him, as nothing he says is worth
reading, and those responding to him should have
better sense. Tony Pagano deserves the same
treatment. Each commits the misdeed of being
perpetually incoherent, posting only text fully
soaked in drool.
The problem of course is that somewhere along the
way each of those threads _might_ drift into some
intelligent discussion, or at least a pun cascade,
but I don't have the patience to plow through the
preliminaries to find any possible worthwhile stuff.
The newsgroup is fat, and these lack-wits form
threads ripe for culling to leave time to read
the better stuff.
xanthian.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
free will = the capability to create alternatives and choose them
alternatives = mutually exclusive possibilities in the future of the
person choosing
choosing = to make the one alternative the present, and abandon the
other alternative(s)
note
- distinguish (imprecise) descriptions of alternatives in the present,
and actual alternatives themselves in the future
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
> measuring time by relative motion only a practical fact, not a true
> fact
and you know this how? because, quite plainly, regarding creationism,
newton was wrong. here is the proof.
newton himself could not understand how planetary motion could be
stable over long periods of time, based on his equations. he
attributed this to 'intelligent design'.
a century later, laplace extended newton's equations to show how
planetary motions were stable over tremendous periods of time. when
asked by napoleon where god fit into the equation, laplace said 'i
have no need of that hypothesis'.
thus the creationist newton was wrong about the meanings of his
metaphysics. laplace was right. so creationism is, itself, wrong even
when analyzed by creationists.
, and found it vile that many of his fellow naturalists considered
> relative time to be equal to true time. The evolutionists such as
> yourself are these vile naturalists.
and you're an ignorant, backward supernaturalist who thinks evidence
should be thrown out when it conflicts with magic. you're a child...an
infant...someone who can't think straight
For instance a practical fact is
> that a baby is descendent from his or her parents. But the true fact
> is that the baby is created, as we can discern by looking at the
> sequence of decisions that is history. And to each of those decisions
> we may in principle attribute a spiritual quality, such as love.
love is human. it is not spiritual because even people who are not
spiritual can have love. this is the great mistake religion makes...it
divides people as you have just proven. you are limited by your
intellect and by your superstition to think of humans in terms of
magic.
And
> that is why a creationist can judge that their baby is born from love,
> but an evolutionist only says their baby is a descentent from them as
> the whole truth, and that is very vile.
except that we see it is creationists who enslave the human spirit by
limiting their children to magic and religion instead of teaching
their children love, respect and human decency. creationism kills. it
is a regression...an unlearning of the human.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> common use
> free will = the capability to create alternatives and choose them
> alternatives = mutually exclusive possibilities in the future of the
> person choosing
which has nothing to do with science
nando_r...@yahoo.com
anticipatory element to Newtons laws of gravitation, by making a
selfrefferential equation of the gravitational law. And by doing this
it turns out the equations of general relativity are obtained from the
equations of Newtonian gravity, so to say general relativity theory is
inherent to gravitational theory, if we apply gravity as acting
according to the *future* as well as the past and present. And in
general relativity we may find inherent unpredictability, which is
caused by deciding, which is the way the future passes into the
present. So Newton was right to say the system is sustained by
adjustmwnts through decisions. It is very clear that without decisions
the system would inevitably tear apart as it gets further away from
the initial varables that control it. The variables must be redecided
to have a chance of stability in the long run.
Ofcourse it cant be another way, the earth ofcourse does not gravitate
to the empty spot where the sun was 15 minutes ago, it gravitates
towards the actual sun.
So Newton is now the cutting-edge science again, if we apply his
theory based on the assumption that the future is real.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As discussed previously, as Dubois showed, we can attach an
> anticipatory element to Newtons laws of gravitation
well, no we can't. 'anticipatory element' is not a scientific concept.
there is no way to define this or to measure it or to predict it.
newton's laws allow us to make predictions so precise that the
existence of unknown planets could be determined.
creationism was the view of nature BEFORE newton and it did not work.
magic was all the rage...theology...'god did it'...none of this
worked. you haven't shown how creationism even works let alone is
superior to science
, by making a
> selfrefferential equation of the gravitational law. And by doing this
> it turns out the equations of general relativity are obtained from the
> equations of Newtonian gravity, so to say general relativity theory is
> inherent to gravitational theory,
well, no it's not. the atheist albert einstein invented the equations
of relativity. i pointed this out before and your idiotic response
was that einstein wasn't a scientist because he wasn't a creationist.
that's called a circular argument.
if we apply gravity as acting
> according to the *future* as well as the past and present. And in
> general relativity we may find inherent unpredictability, which is
> caused by deciding, which is the way the future passes into the
> present. So Newton was right to say the system is sustained by
> adjustmwnts through decisions.
he said nothing of the kind. what he did say was that he did not know
how the system worked. it was up to the atheist laplace to figure it
out...and we still use his methods today. not creationism
the atheist einstein was correct. the creationist newton was wrong.
get over it
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Probably a string theorist....yes hes a string theorist....
>
> First they said lets explain the entire universe as a single string,
really? gee perhaps you could post a reference to the universe as a
'single string' because no one has ever said that....it seems you're
making this up as yo ugo along
> how elegant that would be. At last count they needed at least a
> zillion strings for their theory to hold. Its dead in the water as a
> theory that explains everything.
well....no. there are ALOT of string theories. that's different than a
'zillion strings'. again you don't understand what's going on
>
> Only information theory, in a creationist context, is worthy for
> consideration as a fundamental theory about everything.
really? then why has creationism always been wrong? why was it wrong
when newton said 'god did it'...and was disproven by laplace? why did
it take the atheist einstein to figure out relativity?
> Thus the organism is made very efficiently, and, Godwilling, with much
> joy in the making.
>
'joy' is a human emotion, not a scientific force. you creationists
think everything has to be science
and you're wrong
fc...@verizon.net
To avoid any suspicion that I'm "out to get creationists" I will
address this to you instead of Nando:
Would it be too much to ask that you take your creationism/evolution
debate to another thread?
I did want this thread to be restricted to intra-creationism debates -
or infinitely more likely, how creationists avoid them.
fc...@verizon.net
Creationists call their nonsense "science" too. So I guess we should
expect 2 or more of them to hash out their differences here any minute
now.
I'm giving them a little slack because yesterday was a work day.
>
>
>
> > And towards that end, they're employing the well-known political
> > technique of tossing everything against the wall in hopes that something
> > will stick: YEC, OEC, ID, etc..
>
> > --
> > Steven L.
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
20th century Creationism is not science, but utter nonsense----I
agree. Victorian Creationism is real science. Darwinism is scientism,
a schism----utter non-sense.
Frank: I honestly do not understand Nando. I say this respectfully.
*****Historically, Creationists-IDists do not agree on anything except
the following: design corresponds to invisible Designer and
supernatural agency or causation----that's it.*****
I have attempted to expose the egregious contradictions in Sean
Pitmanism only to be ignored, whether intentionally or because of real
life getting in the way.
I have serious differences with Tony Pagano; but again we, for
whatever reason, have not been able to argue the matters.
The same with Madman. His attacks on evolution make no sense since he
is a mutabilist. And he refuses to listen and address any of the posts
I have created in attacking his position, line by line.
So there.
Refer back to the *****emphasized***** paragraph.
Ray
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Feb 21, 4:48 am, f...@verizon.net wrote:
> > Creationists call their nonsense "science" too. So I guess we should
> > expect 2 or more of them to hash out their differences here any minute
> > now.
>
> > I'm giving them a little slack because yesterday was a work day.
>
> 20th century Creationism is not science, but utter nonsense----I
> agree. Victorian Creationism is real science. Darwinism is scientism,
> a schism----utter non-sense.
"Victorian Creationism" was a religious belief, not science.
"Darwinism" is a particular concept regarding the mechanism of
evolution, and it is indeed scientific. There's no "scientism" or
schism, just normal science. Remember, Ray, what makes sense to
you, is not what makes sense to anyone else.
>
> Frank: I honestly do not understand Nando. I say this respectfully.
I doubt that Nando understands Nando, so don't feel bad.
>
> *****Historically, Creationists-IDists do not agree on anything except
> the following: design corresponds to invisible Designer and
> supernatural agency or causation----that's it.*****
That's why creationism is a religious belief, not science.
Ascribing the appearance of design to an "invisible Designer" that has
never been observed, and never been seen to produce ANY design is
illogical, and inherently unscientific.
>
> I have attempted to expose the egregious contradictions in Sean
> Pitmanism only to be ignored, whether intentionally or because of real
> life getting in the way.
Too bad that Ray doesn't concentrate on his own contradictions, and
falsehoods.....
>
> I have serious differences with Tony Pagano; but again we, for
> whatever reason, have not been able to argue the matters.
Because Tony runs away from any discussion.
>
> The same with Madman. His attacks on evolution make no sense since he
> is a mutabilist. And he refuses to listen and address any of the posts
> I have created in attacking his position, line by line.
Ray, your own attacks on evolution make just as little sense. More
to the point, you are incapable of recognzing your own mistakes.
>
> So there.
>
> Refer back to the *****emphasized***** paragraph.
So, Ray, why don't you discuss the dishonesty in all the above
posters?
Why don't you address the dishonesty in your own position?
DJT
wf3h
did it ever occur to you that, with this level of disagreement between
creationists,
there's something very, very wrong with creationism.
fc...@verizon.net
I can understand why YECs, OECs and IDers downplay that fatal weakness
for the sake of the big tent. But it's mind-boggling how most
"evolutionists" do nothing to dispel the public misconceptions that
(1) round-earth, heliocentric YEC is not only the only option other
than evolution, and (2) that it's based on honest belief, if not
evidence. Even people who are clueless about science works,
specifically the *convergence* aspect, might seriously suspect that
all of those mutually contradictory accounts might be wrong if they
only knew how many of them there are.
>
> I have attempted to expose the egregious contradictions in Sean
> Pitmanism only to be ignored, whether intentionally or because of real
> life getting in the way.
>
> I have serious differences with Tony Pagano; but again we, for
> whatever reason, have not been able to argue the matters.
>
> The same with Madman. His attacks on evolution make no sense since he
> is a mutabilist. And he refuses to listen and address any of the posts
> I have created in attacking his position, line by line.
>
> So there.
Thanks, but for this to be a real debate they need to show up and
defend their positions and critique yours - and with no reference to
evolution or any other positions not represented in the debate.
>
> Refer back to the *****emphasized***** paragraph.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
free act. Evolutionists base their science on the cause and effect
principle, creationists base their science on a principle of free
acts. That is the difference.
So I went looking for a theory based on freedom as a working
principle, and I found anticipation theory by a well respected
professor scientists. Then I went looking for application of this
theory to the biological realm and found a paper by Taborsky. The
paper talks about evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
decisions¨.
You see the difference between creationism and evolution is to
acknowledge freedom as a working principle. Only to acknowledge this
principle and it automatically leads to creationism / intelligent
design theory, just like I predicted in advance.
What your creationism consists of without understanding of freedom I
dont know.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
fc...@verizon.net
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Simplicity Ray. Creation is a free act, so is the final judgement a
> free act. Evolutionists base their science on the cause and effect
> principle, creationists base their science on a principle of free
> acts. That is the difference.
>
> So I went looking for a theory based on freedom as a working
> principle, and I found anticipation theory by a well respected
> professor scientists. Then I went looking for application of this
> theory to the biological realm and found a paper by Taborsky. The
> paper talks about evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨.
>
> You see the difference between creationism and evolution is to
> acknowledge freedom as a working principle. Only to acknowledge this
> principle and it automatically leads to creationism / intelligent
> design theory, just like I predicted in advance.
Does it lead to creationism or ID? The DI swears that they are 2
different things, so which is it?
Let me help both you and Ray. Please try to keep the debate to more
easily confirmable and falsifiable claims, such as "what happened
when," which species share common ancestors, etc. And leave evolution
out of it, at least on this thread. You have countless others to
wallow in it.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Even people who are clueless about science works,
> specifically the *convergence* aspect, might
> seriously suspect that all of those mutually
> contradictory accounts might be wrong if they only
> knew how many of them there are.
Of course, that argument holds even more so for
theisms in general.
They are rabidly mutually contradictory, so not all
of them can possibly be right.
Considering how many theisms there are, and how
schismed each major variety is, and how in hate with
one another the schisms are, and how willing each
variety and schism within varieties is to prove all
of the others wrong, not even one of them can
possibly be right.
This much is easy to see with merely an open mind,
one doesn't need (yet) to be an atheist.
xanthian.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
- the information in DNA is partially motivational
- the chances of fight and flight of competing organisms engaging
fluctuate due to organisms decisionmaking capability
- the information for making human beings appeared near the start of
the universe, due to a specific decision made then
- the universe starts out with an act of creation, and ends with the
final judgement
- creation starts from zero, creatio ex nihilo
- organisms freely vary the use of chemical machinery in their
structure, which reduces wear and tear over using the same chemical
machinery all the time.
All these claims are based on freedom as a working principle, and all
these claims are denied by evolutionists outright because they are
based on freedom.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Free Lunch
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Do you think that you have any idea what you are talking about or do you
know that you are imitating a Markov chain?
fc...@verizon.net
What is with you people that you can't say anything about your
"theory" without some reference to evolution??? Your comment "denied
by evolutionists outright", whether right or wrong, is 100% irrelevant
to the topic of this thread, which is is to debate your differences
with *other creationists*. So far I don't see one word about *when"
you think major events occurred, such as the first life, Cambrian, K/
T, the first moderrn humans, etc. All crucial to any debate regarding
origin of species.
But thanks for proving my point. You have hundreds of other threads to
continue your evasion and anti-evolution rants. But just like those
scam artists who already are free to peddle theor pseudoscience to
high school students for ~99.9% of their waking hours (all but public
school science class), that's still not enough.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creationist should look to the decisions where the organisms are
created. The outlines for the kinds of organisms and human beings is
already present near the start of the universe, those are big
creationist issues. So you see it is a decisionprocess where big
decisions are made at the beginning, and it all ends with a decision,
the final judgement.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
fc...@verizon.net
Still evading the "when" questions I see. Just like the other ~70%
that I ask.
I hope that this is quite the learning experience for those new to the
"debate", as it was for me ~12 years ago.
wf3h
subject, of course, to the laws of nature. if you disagree, show me
the freedom involved in stepping out a 10th story window
so is the final judgement a
> free act. Evolutionists base their science on the cause and effect
> principle, creationists base their science on a principle of free
> acts. That is the difference.
science has been successful. creationism is dead. get over it
>
> So I went looking for a theory based on freedom as a working
> principle, and I found anticipation theory by a well respected
> professor scientists. Then I went looking for application of this
> theory to the biological realm and found a paper by Taborsky. The
> paper talks about evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨.
>
> You see the difference between creationism and evolution is to
> acknowledge freedom as a working principle. Only to acknowledge this
> principle and it automatically leads to creationism / intelligent
> design theory, just like I predicted in advance.
of course, nando thinks einstein was not a scientist and his work was
unimportant because he was an atheist....that's nando's view of
science
wf3h
> - the information in DNA is partially motivational
really? how do you know this? how do you measure it?
> - the chances of fight and flight of competing organisms engaging
> fluctuate due to organisms decisionmaking capability
what decision making capability does a bacteria have? a fly?
none.
> - the information for making human beings appeared near the start of
> the universe, due to a specific decision made then
and you know this how? actually i think it was the easter
bunny...makes as much sense
>
> All these claims are based on freedom as a working principle, and all
> these claims are denied by evolutionists outright because they are
> based on freedom.
evolution says zip about freedom.
and every single american slave owner was a creationist. doesn't look
like creationists think much of freedom
nando_r...@yahoo.com
also said how time passes, by decision a chosen alternative in the
future passes to the present, thats another when question of a sort.
I hope that any person reading this thread realizes its inevitable
that science again will be based on the principle of free acts as it
once was, which means creationism is the proper foundation for all
science.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
only if we regress a thousand years.
creationism was an explanation of nature for thousands of years. it
led nowhere. it was always wrong. it was wrong on:
earthquakes
planetary motion
disease
starlight
etc etc. so it was tried. and it was wrong
Ray Martinez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Very first thing, Nando, you need to reply to each comment and not
snip them. Producing a message that only contains your input prevents
understanding.
> Simplicity Ray. Creation is a free act,
So, what is the point in reference to?
Free in relation to Darwinian evolution which is un-free?
> so is the final judgement a
> free act.
Again, what is the point in reference to?
> Evolutionists base their science on the cause and effect
> principle, creationists base their science on a principle of free
> acts. That is the difference.
>
First thing: evolution is not science. Next thing: your contrast still
leaves one asking "okay....so what is the point?"
The MAIN difference between Creationism and Darwinism is agency of
causation; the former credits Divine power and intelligence, the
latter credits material-natural forces unconnected to the former.
The Creationism-Darwinism debate is about how species come to be in
nature, that is, what causes their existence? Creationism says Divine
power (God-did-it). Darwinism says unguided material-natural forces
(God-didn't-do-it). To sell their atheistic baloney to a theistic
world, Darwinists misrepresent these basic and objective facts in a
myriad number of intelligence insulting ways.
But getting back to the business at hand: When Creationism credits
Divine power as the agent of causation that is operating in reality,
producing species in time and space (= nature), "Divine power" could
be the power of Jehovah, Allah or the deity of any theistic religion.
This prevents any attempt to pit one theistic religion against another
since we agree, in principle, to Divine power operating in reality as
the force of causation producing the effects. Do you understand and
agree?
> So I went looking for a theory based on freedom as a working
> principle, and I found anticipation theory by a well respected
> professor scientists. Then I went looking for application of this
> theory to the biological realm and found a paper by Taborsky. The
> paper talks about evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨.
>
False.
In the historic Creation-Evolution debate there are only two *root*
theories to choose from:
1. William Paley, 1802 (presupposes Divine power as agent of
causation).
2. Charles Darwin, 1859 (presupposes unguided material forces, mainly
natural selection, as agent of causation).
(Note: I can reference this choice from *at least* 10 different big
time modern scholars and untold lesser known sources; and from untold
Victorian primary sources.)
Again, Paley's theory allows causation to be the deity of any
*theistic* religion, even though he was working, by silent
presupposition, in support of the Genesis Creator. To depart from
these two choices is to depart from the objective historic stream and
context of the Creation-Evolution debate. In 1996, Michael Behe, a
scientist who accepts common ancestry and human evolution, published
*within* the two choices (siding with Paley). As did Richard Dawkins,
1986 (siding with Darwin).
Muslims can certainly say that Allah is the source of the Divine power
and cite Paley 1802.
> You see the difference between creationism and evolution is to
> acknowledge freedom as a working principle. Only to acknowledge this
> principle and it automatically leads to creationism / intelligent
> design theory, just like I predicted in advance.
>
> What your creationism consists of without understanding of freedom I
> dont know.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
I have explained briefly the facts of the *historic* Creationism-
Evolution debate.
I have nothing against your points except as noted above.
Ray
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I hope that any person reading this thread realizes its inevitable
That you are an inconsiderate, ignorant, totally mad, moron. Yes, I'm
sure they got that a long time ago.
--
Bob.
fc...@verizon.net
Any person reading this thread will first notice that you continue to
refuse to provide *numbers* - years - nanoseconds, whatever.
fc...@verizon.net
You'd have a lot more if he didn't conveniently leave out all the
facts and testable hypotheses that could conceivably make his "theory"
a potential alternative to evolution. But I also see no details here
about your old-earth-young-biosphere alternative. I don't recall ever
seeing your estimate of *when* those other biospheres existed. That
alone would give you and Nando - not to mention Michael Behe who
would't be caught dead on this thread - *lots* to debate about.
>
> Ray
nando_r...@yahoo.com
of freedom says it is impossible.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
> On Feb 21, 1:08 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Very first thing, Nando, you need to reply to each comment and not
> snip them. Producing a message that only contains your input prevents
> understanding.
>
> > Simplicity Ray. Creation is a free act,
>
> So, what is the point in reference to?
>
> Free in relation to Darwinian evolution which is un-free?
>
> > so is the final judgement a
> > free act.
>
> Again, what is the point in reference to?
>
> > Evolutionists base their science on the cause and effect
> > principle, creationists base their science on a principle of free
> > acts. That is the difference.
>
> First thing: evolution is not science.
Wrong. How is it *not* science?
> Next thing: your contrast still
> leaves one asking "okay....so what is the point?"
>
> The MAIN difference between Creationism and Darwinism is agency of
> causation; the former credits Divine power and intelligence, the
> latter credits material-natural forces unconnected to the former.
Which means the former, cretionism, is not science, and the latter
is. Unless you have evidence of dibine power being involved.
>
> The Creationism-Darwinism debate is about how species come to be in
> nature, that is, what causes their existence? Creationism says Divine
> power (God-did-it). Darwinism says unguided material-natural forces
> (God-didn't-do-it).
Science is mute on the god issue untill the is *evidence* of a god.
> To sell their atheistic baloney
It's agnostic, and it's rational.
> to a theistic
> world, Darwinists misrepresent these basic and objective facts in a
> myriad number of intelligence insulting ways.
Observation, hypothesising, testing, verifiying. How rude!
>
> But getting back to the business at hand: When Creationism credits
> Divine power as the agent of causation that is operating in reality,
> producing species in time and space (= nature), "Divine power" could
> be the power of Jehovah, Allah or the deity of any theistic religion.
> This prevents any attempt to pit one theistic religion against another
> since we agree, in principle, to Divine power operating in reality as
> the force of causation producing the effects. Do you understand and
> agree?
>
It could also be due to aliens. But again, you have no *evidence*.
Or aliens. Again, no evidence, since arguments of incredulity (Pauly)
does not count as evidence.
>
> > You see the difference between creationism and evolution is to
> > acknowledge freedom as a working principle. Only to acknowledge this
> > principle and it automatically leads to creationism / intelligent
> > design theory, just like I predicted in advance.
>
> > What your creationism consists of without understanding of freedom I
> > dont know.
>
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> I have explained briefly the facts of the *historic* Creationism-
> Evolution debate.
And demonstrated your ignorance of science, in general, while doing
so.
>
> I have nothing against your points except as noted above.
This is one of those rare occasions where nando is probably more right
in some aspects, than the person replying to his post. Nando is still
pissing in the wind when it comes to his concepts of 'freedom", "free
will" "decisions" and "choice", though.
>
Boikat
roki...@cox.net
Ray won't have to worry about claiming he is the only real Christian,
but atheist and infidel might be sticking points.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
No. Only atheists think that "metaphysical naturalism" is synonymous
with science.
Methodological naturalism--the notion that learning about Nature should
be done naturalistically--is certainly necessary for science. But
metaphysical naturalism, which denies the existence of anything
supernatural, is not.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Boikat
I'm rooting for nando. He has T.O. loonship senority. :)
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
I doubt that you can honestly provide supporting evidence that
"Victorian Creationism" is real science, after all if it was then the
20th and 21st Century Creationists would have used it long ago to
disprove what you call "Darwinism".
And you have yet to present any supporting evidence for any of your
claims against evolutionary theory despite having been in a position -
supposedly - to do so back in 2005.
If your evidence against evolutionary theory is so good, it should
stand up to scrutiny without being wrapped up in a "quality work", and
you have been asked on many occasions to present it, yet you continue
to avoid this issue like the plague.
But I don't see you responding to this post as you believe me to be -
without evidence - "horribly ignorant".
However you can prove me wrong by responding and presenting supporting
evidence for all your claims, including the last one.
>
> Frank: I honestly do not understand Nando. I say this respectfully.
>
> *****Historically, Creationists-IDists do not agree on anything except
> the following: design corresponds to invisible Designer and
> supernatural agency or causation----that's it.*****
Are you sure that this is the case?
May I suggest you read the following article by Clyde Freeman Herreid,
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Buff alo, State
University of New York:
http://www.sciencecases.org/id_discussion/id_discussion.pdf
I present here a key extract:
“Yes, I do, Bob. Our attorney has advised us that this is not an issue
of God. Th is is an issue of free speech and the right to teach our
children about a current controversy in science. We don’t know who or
what the designer is. And we may never know, but the evidence is
clear, there was a Designer. He may be a time
traveling cell biologist, he may be an extraterrestrial, he may be a
space alien as Nobel Price winner, Francis Crick, has suggested. He
may be something that some of us might call a God, but it is important
that we not get tangled up with the First Amendment. So, let us agree
to set the identity of Th e Designer aside. Thank you.”
The above are the words of the Reverend Daly.
>
> I have attempted to expose the egregious contradictions in Sean
> Pitmanism only to be ignored, whether intentionally or because of real
> life getting in the way.
Perhaps you should email Sean and ask why he wont debate with you.
>
> I have serious differences with Tony Pagano; but again we, for
> whatever reason, have not been able to argue the matters.
Perhaps you should do the same with Tony.
>
> The same with Madman. His attacks on evolution make no sense since he
> is a mutabilist. And he refuses to listen and address any of the posts
> I have created in attacking his position, line by line.
Perhaps you should do the same with [M]adman.
After all if these three choose not to debate their positions with you
it is hardly the fault of anyone else in this newsgroup.
>
> So there.
>
> Refer back to the *****emphasized***** paragraph.
>
gregwrld
Sorry, I'd forgotten how nuts you are.
gregwrld
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the creation is a free act.
the final judgement is a free act.
God is the holy spirit.
So the difference in ¨causation¨ evolution v creation is the material
v the spiritual.
The spiritual is what does the job of choosing. You cant prove claims
about the spiritual, you cant even prove your own loves and hates are
real, let alone prove God. These things are proven by subjective
reasonable judgement, not by objective measurement. You cant measure
love and God, you should already know this.
Paley only proved God by reasonable judgement, not by objectively
measuring Gods presence.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
But Ray is nastier. Bar brawl, or Marquis of Queensbury
rules? That will make all the difference.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Greg G.
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:09:45 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
> <boi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 22, 10:02 am, rokim...@cox.net wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 8:55 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > If you want to prove the existence of God then a basic understanding
> >> > of freedom says it is impossible.
>
> >> > regards,
> >> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> >> Ray won't have to worry about claiming he is the only real Christian,
> >> but atheist and infidel might be sticking points.
>
> >> Ron Okimoto
>
> >I'm rooting for nando. He has T.O. loonship senority. :)
>
> But Ray is nastier. Bar brawl, or Marquis of Queensbury
> rules? That will make all the difference.
We use Marquis of Queensbury rules when we play Euchre.
[M]adman
you really do have brain damage.
John S. Wilkins
Not professionals, then...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
[M]adman
[\\\]
> The same with Madman. His attacks on evolution make no sense since he
> is a mutabilist. And he refuses to listen and address any of the posts
> I have created in attacking his position, line by line.
I was going to refrain from responding to this entire thread and your post
in-particular.
But what the hell....
It is obvious ---as well as proven beyond the shadow of a doubt--- that
micro-evolution happens. Micro-evolution can be observed today. In real
time. And it can explain many things when you start with a created "kind" as
it is described in the bible and as it is described by the many other
ancient texts available..
Likewise it is obvious that macro-evolution does /not/ happen. Period.
Macro-evolution cannot be observed in real time. In addition, any of the
scarce evidences involving macro-evolution are ambiguous and are subject to
interpretation. There can be (and probably is) other explanations for such
evidences.
So I do not "attack evolution" as you claim. I attach the hijacking of
legitimate science that favors ambiguous evidences that are subject to
interpretation and then claims that evidence is proof that there is not a
creator.
Their evidences are subject to change with each new discovery. So presenting
them as gospel truth today is a lie. It deceives mankind and eliminates many
people from the idea that there just may be a creator. At the very least, it
prevents those that could be comforted through life by the notion of a "God
the Father" from doing so.
What we have here is a group of people that claim there is no God while
using science to make their point with evolution. But they do not know if
there is a creator one way or the other. But they prevent others from making
that decision themselves by persisting evolution as fact. Evolution fills
their agenda and their belief system.
And their belief system is nothing more or less then a religion. It becomes
a substitution for the traditional religious beliefs.
The fact of the matter is there is more anecdotal evidence for a creator
then there is physical evidence for the 'fish to man' notion. When you add
the numerous ancient texts that have been handed down by our ancestors that
attest to this fact, macro-evolution becomes the fraud that it is.
So forgive me for correcting you Ray. But I do not "attack evolution". I
attack those that use evolution to influence mankind away from the idea and
the possibility of a God. --God The creator.
In a left handed kinda way, you do the same thing. By insisting that ALL of
science is wrong you are just as bad as the evolutionist claiming that ALL
ancient texts are wrong. Which includes the bible.
It has been my experience that real truth is usually somewhere between two
extremes.
You are on one end of the extreme and the evolutionists are on the other.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
Projection.
Boikat
Steven L.
> On Feb 20, 6:55 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> f...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> Anti-evolutionists, this thread is your big chance. Not as big as if
>>> you actually did some science, but since you don’t, this is it. So
>>> don’t blow it, OK?
>>> As you painfully know, all 20 years of "anything but ‘Darwinism’” big
>>> tent evasion has gotten you is a conservative Christian Bush-appointed
>>> judge calling your nonsense “breathtaking inanity.” And no increase in
>>> the % of evolution-deniers despite being free to peddle your
>>> pseudoscience for the ~99.9% of waking hours that public school
>>> students are not learning evolution. Admit it, the “don’t ask, don’t
>>> tell” policy has been at best a waste of time, and probably much
>>> worse.
>>> You can change that here and now. Decide among yourselves one YEC and
>>> one OEC (preferably an * old life * variant who does not dispute any
>>> mainstream chronology), and have them debate their respective
>>> “theories” * without *, repeat * without *, referring to any problems
>>> with “Darwinism,” “naturalism,” etc. If you want to add more
>>> creationists, such as flat earthers or those who accept common
>>> descent, go for it.
>>> Stick to the whats, whens and hows of the Creator/designer’s actions.
>>> It should be * much * easier than the same old breathtaking inanity.
>> I don't think the creationists really care about this, frankly.
>
>
>> Certainly the Discovery Institute doesn't have as its main goal to learn
>> more about the history of the world we live in--what really took place
>> and when. Rather, their main goal is to change present-day American
>> society.
>
>
>> Knocking down evolution is just their way of trying to undercut what
>> they call "atheistic materialism" (which the rest of us call
>> "metaphysical naturalism"). That's their true target.
>>
>> technique of tossing everything against the wall in hopes that something
>> will stick: YEC, OEC, ID, etc..
>
> And they realize that the only way to do that is to avoid the mistakes
> that "classic" creationist organizations make by occasionally
> criticizing other brands of creationism.
>
> But unlike the DI folk some of the TO regulars occasionally take pot
> shots at other creationists. I doubt that they will expand on those
> criticisms with the high visibility of its own thread.
Martinez and Pagano and Pittman are the rank-and-file of the creationist
movement. With all due respect to them, they are not the visible
leaders of the creationist and ID movements. I'm waiting and waiting
for Michael Behe to denounce YEC as crackpottery.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the creation is a free act.
> the final judgement is a free act.
> God is the holy spirit.
>
> So the difference in ¨causation¨ evolution v creation is the material
> v the spiritual.
>
> The spiritual is what does the job of choosing. You cant prove claims
> about the spiritual, you cant even prove your own loves and hates are
> real, let alone prove God. These things are proven by subjective
> reasonable judgement, not by objective measurement. You cant measure
> love and God, you should already know this.
then how can you say god is scientific? we can measure weight, length,
height, time, etc. we can determine the effects of physical properties
on events in nature
we can do NOTHING like that with god. that's why science is not
creationism and creationism is not science. for thousands of years,
creationists tried to use their mumbo jumbo to explain events in
nature. did they ever make a computer? nope. an antibiotic? a
satellite?...they made nothing at all because they can not understand
nature.
nature is not 'spiritual' in terms of its properties. it is physical.
and it is necessary to understand the physical to understand nature.
otherwise your mumbo jumbo would have led to the very computer you are
typing on, rather than having it be invented by SCIENTISTS
>
> Paley only proved God by reasonable judgement, not by objectively
> measuring Gods presence.
>
judgement is not reasonable if it contradicts evidence. and paley was
off by a parsec.
Iain
>The 1st Annual Talk.Origins YEC-OEC Debate
This will be like one of those videos in which two pervs put a camel
spider and a scorpion together in a bucket.
--Iain
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Cosmides, Tooby make science about love and hate, to them those are
material things. To creationists those things are spiritual. It is not
the creationists that scientize everything, creationists emphasize
faith and Darwinists ridicule faith very commonly.
Wf3h doesnt even acknowledge a spiritual category, so then there is
one category left into which everything must fit, the material. And in
there we find ballet dancing which you always mention, no matter what
you say to deny it is in the category of material, because you dont
have any category besides the material, so you must put it all in
there. And every material thing can be covered by science, so you
scientize everything, by having just 1 category, the material.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwinists such as Darwin, Heackel, Lorentz(nazi), Dawkins, Dennet,
> Cosmides, Tooby make science about love and hate, to them those are
> material things. To creationists those things are spiritual. It is not
> the creationists that scientize everything, creationists emphasize
> faith and Darwinists ridicule faith very commonly.
well they certainly ridicule YOUR kind of faith which is no faith at
all. rather, your 'faith' is an attempt to remove faith from the human
person and turn it into a machine which generates certainty.
your 'faith' destroys faith. it mechanizes it, turns it into a
calculating machine for cockroaches, rocks, electrons and human
beings. to you, there's no difference between the faith of a child in
its mother, and the 'faith' of a cockroach in selecting which sewer to
crawl into
that's your faith.
>
> Wf3h doesnt even acknowledge a spiritual category
i don't acknowledge it as SCIENCE. you want to scientize EVERYTHING.
to you, the spiritual is not something that humans have. it is a
property of matter no different than mass, or length or time.
, so then there is
> one category left into which everything must fit, the material. And in
> there we find ballet dancing which you always mention, no matter what
> you say to deny it is in the category of material, because you dont
> have any category besides the material,
where did you get the idea that ballet dancing is material or that i
ONLY have the material? YOU are the one who tries to turn a human
being into a rock since both have 'decisions' to make. to you, a human
being is as valuable as a rock...there's no difference
that's 'creation science'.
so you must put it all in
> there. And every material thing can be covered by science, so you
> scientize everything, by having just 1 category, the material.
so you imagine. you have no idea of anything outside your tawdry,
cheap, slumlord religion. you live in a trailer park of the human
mind, limited by your own vision, such as it is, of nothing but some
bizarre view of a god who is a calculating machine
that's creationism
nando_r...@yahoo.com
thats peanuts. Think bigger, think about making creationism the
foundation of all sciences. This is right because creationism covers
the entire universe from beginning to end, creation to final
judgement. Replace cause and effect, with a principle of making
choices.
And I do not subscribe to micro evolution as an established fact of
nature. Evolution is a comparison between differing organisms,
comparisons are not facts of nature but instead manufactured facts for
practical use. You can well establish that one organism is different
from another, as you can establish that one cloud is whiter than
another, but differential whiteness is just information that exist in
our heads, and not in nature. To look at origins of anything you must
look at the decisions by which it came to be, those are true facts of
nature, comparisons are only practical facts.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
material, but real. So what category do you have besides the material.
Ofcourse if you mention another category besides material your fellow
Darwinists on the forum will kill you as a traitor, and this is the
reason why you do not mention any other category besides the
material.
The head of the American NABT National Association for Biology
Teachers is a selfproclaimed ¨philosophical naturalist¨. She is not a
creationist but a Darwinist, it is quite clearly Darwinists that
scientize everything, for example Charles Darwin.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I read an article by an atheist who acknowledged values as non
> material, but real.
ah. so FINALLY you are starting to see that atheism does NOT mean
'materialism'. good. you're stepping out of your self imposed prison.
>So what category do you have besides the material.
the non-material. beauty. truth, feeling, emotion, and even reason.
those belong to the human but they are not material.
> Ofcourse if you mention another category besides material your fellow
> Darwinists on the forum will kill you as a traitor, and this is the
> reason why you do not mention any other category besides the
> material.
ROFLMAO!! hey nando..quite frankly i have disputed with virtually
every single 'darwinist' on this group. for example, i refer to jeff
turner as jeff 'turner diaries' because of his extreme hatred of jews
and israel. (look up 'turner diaries' to see what this refers to.)
i have said that 'snex' is wrong regarding his views on atheism. john
harshman and john wilkins have both corrected me on aspects of
evolution.
so what makes you think i particularly care about what others on this
group think about me?
so what you've done is taken an incorrect assumption...the idea that
i want to be 'popular' and misapplied it regarding metaphysical
beliefs that i have. and you're wrong. i just gave you a number of
examples above where i've slammed others on this group, and where
others have corrected me where i've been wrong.
so you're wrong.
>
> The head of the American NABT National Association for Biology
> Teachers is a selfproclaimed ¨philosophical naturalist¨. She is not a
> creationist but a Darwinist, it is quite clearly Darwinists that
> scientize everything, for example Charles Darwin.
>
hey nando...scientists are aware of the role of 'scientism' in
history. you are not. no scientist today holds 'scientism' as an
idea. so you're wrong that 'darwinists scientize' everything.
because it's plain that you, who equate humans and rocks, do, indeed,
scientize everything. you remove the human from the human and make us
no different than any other piece of matter.
and that's what creationism does.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (M)adman, what you are talking about is peanuts, macro evolution,
> thats peanuts. Think bigger, think about making creationism the
> foundation of all sciences.
hey nando...a little secret for you:
creationism WAS the only game in town for 2000 years. it's like a
ballgame where only 1 team shows up and it STILL loses the game.
the reason creationism died was that it was useless. it couldn't even
predict planetary motion, it couldn't tell us why defecating in your
drinking water was a bad idea.
only science did this; only science could answer these questions.
creationism had a 2000 year attempt to hit home runs with no
opposition at all. none
and it still struck out.
This is right because creationism covers
> the entire universe from beginning to end, creation to final
> judgement. Replace cause and effect, with a principle of making
> choices.
and it still could not even tell us how far a thrown stone would go,
or why there's magnetism, or why there are earthquakes. it could
answer no questions at all. none.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Greg G."
<ggw...@gmail.com>:
Damn! I'd hate to see one of your "War" games!
Devils Advocaat
hmmm an 8 legged camel, sounds like it could really get the hump big
time. :P
Devils Advocaat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (M)adman, what you are talking about is peanuts, macro evolution,
> thats peanuts.
so you admit that peanuts evolved?
interesting
[M]adman
You give a totally new meaning to the phrase "mental midget".
[M]adman
> (M)adman, what you are talking about is peanuts, macro evolution,
> thats peanuts. Think bigger, think about making creationism the
> foundation of all sciences. This is right because creationism covers
> the entire universe from beginning to end, creation to final
> judgement. Replace cause and effect, with a principle of making
> choices.
Creationism (for lack of a better word) *IS* the foundation of all sciences.
The problem is "science" has become too arrogant to notice.
>
> And I do not subscribe to micro evolution as an established fact of
> nature. Evolution is a comparison between differing organisms,
> comparisons are not facts of nature but instead manufactured facts for
> practical use. You can well establish that one organism is different
> from another, as you can establish that one cloud is whiter than
> another, but differential whiteness is just information that exist in
> our heads, and not in nature. To look at origins of anything you must
> look at the decisions by which it came to be, those are true facts of
> nature, comparisons are only practical facts.
You are simply wrong here IMHO.
According to the hebrew bible, God said "each after his own kind". A Dog is
after his own kind named the wolf. So dogs originate from their ancestor the
wolf.
There are 'breeds' of dogs today that did not exist 50 years ago. They were
not created by God, they were allowed to come into existance with God's
"each after his own kind" rule. Should the dog develop to the point that it
cannot breed with his 'kind' the wolf any longer then this is not a new
species because the dog still originates from the wolf.
The same applies to plants. If you have two of the same "kind" of seed
bearing fruit, then they can be grafted to produce a new fruit after the two
original "kinds".
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
>
> > and it still could not even tell us how far a thrown stone would go,
> > or why there's magnetism, or why there are earthquakes. it could
> > answer no questions at all. none.
>
> You give a totally new meaning to the phrase "mental midget".-
IOW you have no response so retreat to the creationist rule book to
see how to respond to a valid argument.
thanks. i already knew that
heekster
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:09:45 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
><boi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>On Feb 22, 10:02 am, rokim...@cox.net wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 8:55 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>>>
>>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > If you want to prove the existence of God then a basic understanding
>>> > of freedom says it is impossible.
>>>
>>> > regards,
>>> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>>>
>>> Ray won't have to worry about claiming he is the only real Christian,
>>> but atheist and infidel might be sticking points.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>I'm rooting for nando. He has T.O. loonship senority. :)
>
>But Ray is nastier. Bar brawl, or Marquis of Queensbury
>rules? That will make all the difference.
Imbecilities and grotesqueries at 20 paces.
wf3h
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > (M)adman, what you are talking about is peanuts, macro evolution,
> > thats peanuts. Think bigger, think about making creationism the
> > foundation of all sciences. This is right because creationism covers
> > the entire universe from beginning to end, creation to final
> > judgement. Replace cause and effect, with a principle of making
> > choices.
>
> Creationism (for lack of a better word) *IS* the foundation of all sciences.
> The problem is "science" has become too arrogant to notice.
IOW the idea that magic is the foundation of nature proves that there
are natural laws...
kind of like saying living at dairy queen will cause you to lose
weight...
creationists are never logical.
and adman uses a scientist invented computer to tell us how arrogant
science is. funny, the parasite doesn't have a problem USING science
when it's convenient for him...
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> (M)adman, what you are talking about is peanuts, macro evolution,
>> thats peanuts. Think bigger, think about making creationism the
>> foundation of all sciences. This is right because creationism covers
>> the entire universe from beginning to end, creation to final
>> judgement. Replace cause and effect, with a principle of making
>> choices.
>
>Creationism (for lack of a better word) *IS* the foundation of all sciences.
Of course it isn't.
>The problem is "science" has become too arrogant to notice.
Rubbish.
>
>>
>> And I do not subscribe to micro evolution as an established fact of
>> nature. Evolution is a comparison between differing organisms,
>> comparisons are not facts of nature but instead manufactured facts for
>> practical use. You can well establish that one organism is different
>> from another, as you can establish that one cloud is whiter than
>> another, but differential whiteness is just information that exist in
>> our heads, and not in nature. To look at origins of anything you must
>> look at the decisions by which it came to be, those are true facts of
>> nature, comparisons are only practical facts.
>
>You are simply wrong here IMHO.
Your opinion has proven worthless Mudbrain.
>
>According to the hebrew bible, God said "each after his own kind". A Dog is
>after his own kind named the wolf. So dogs originate from their ancestor the
>wolf.
And the wolf's ancestors?
>
>There are 'breeds' of dogs today that did not exist 50 years ago. They were
>not created by God, they were allowed to come into existance with God's
>"each after his own kind" rule. Should the dog develop to the point that it
>cannot breed with his 'kind' the wolf any longer then this is not a new
>species because the dog still originates from the wolf.
Silly and unscientific.
>
>The same applies to plants. If you have two of the same "kind" of seed
>bearing fruit, then they can be grafted to produce a new fruit after the two
>original "kinds".
--
Bob.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
category besides the material. Which is because he doesn't.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
> Still wf3h doesn't actually come out and say he acknowledges another
> category besides the material. Which is because he doesn't.
>
and nando doesnt say he acknowledges that there are other concepts
besides science
which is because he thinks religion is science
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the decisions by which they came to be. This includes the variations
of kinds. It is not a sufficient explanation in creationism that; one
came after another, and the other was different. You have to make
explicit where the decisions are in the process.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
There was no "decision" involved, especially if you are trying to
claim a "mind" was involved. Events occur continiously, throughout
the Universe, where no "decisions" are made with a mind behind the
"decision". Rocks eroding from a cliff face do not "decide" to fall,
they just do, due to physical forces. No mind involved. Comets in an
orbit do not "decide" to stay in a particular orbit, and only
experience a change in course due to external influences, like gravity
fields of near by bodies of sufficient mass to effect any appreciable
change in the orbit. If you have evidence to the contrary, please
present it.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@iwxt.net>:
Should be a draw, since observation shows the total
inability of both to aim.
[M]adman
God made the explicit decision within the original creation.
The "other" /kind/ of life that evolves from the created 'kind' of life is
not different. It is "after" his own kind despite any changes it may have
gone through. A cat will never exist as a cat while diverging into a dog and
a rat no matter how much time or how many mutations are involved. THAT is
what these k00ks fail to understand. A created "kind" will evolve with the
earth. But they will never evolve into something so totally different from
what they were in the beginning to be considered a complete new life form.
And any one thinks otherwise is brain damaged. This would be true if there
was or was not a God. Biology.
God's decision was made 'in the beginning when He gave all living things the
ability to adapt, to survive, and to change to meet an evolving earth and
their surroundings. God gave every species the ability to continue the life
cycle no matter what the conditions of the earth are.
The wolf is being selected out by man and man's impact on the environment.
God's response (decided in the beginning) is the Dog. So in essence, the
wolf will always be with us as the Dog. God gave the Wolf an ability to
adapt to man expanding in the wolf's environment. When man had a smaller
impact on the Wolf's environment, the wolf served it's purpose in nature.
But now that mankind is expanding, the wolf will serve a new purpose as the
dog.
If the dog could no longer serve a purpose in nature then the dog would go
extinct; which would also make the wolf's 'kind' extinct.
[M]adman
pathetic.
wf3h
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But still, to look for the origins of *anything* you have to look for
> > the decisions by which they came to be. This includes the variations
> > of kinds. It is not a sufficient explanation in creationism that; one
> > came after another, and the other was different. You have to make
> > explicit where the decisions are in the process.
>
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> God made the explicit decision within the original creation.
>
> The "other" /kind/ of life that evolves from the created 'kind' of life is
> not different. It is "after" his own kind despite any changes it may have
> gone through. A cat will never exist as a cat while diverging into a dog and
> a rat no matter how much time or how many mutations are involved. THAT is
> what these k00ks fail to understand.
of course, the evidence shows otherwise but adman never lets facts get
in the way of a myth
A created "kind" will evolve with the
> earth. But they will never evolve into something so totally different from
> what they were in the beginning to be considered a complete new life form.
> And any one thinks otherwise is brain damaged. This would be true if there
> was or was not a God. Biology.
taliban christian thinking
>
>
> The wolf is being selected out by man and man's impact on the environment.
> God's response (decided in the beginning) is the Dog. So in essence, the
> wolf will always be with us as the Dog. God gave the Wolf an ability to
> adapt to man expanding in the wolf's environment. When man had a smaller
> impact on the Wolf's environment, the wolf served it's purpose in nature.
> But now that mankind is expanding, the wolf will serve a new purpose as the
> dog.
>
> If the dog could no longer serve a purpose in nature then the dog would go
> extinct; which would also make the wolf's 'kind' extinct.
ah the quaint child like thinking of the creationist. everything has a
'purpose'. the 'purpose' of green trees and rainbows is to look
pretty. the 'purpose' of the oceans is to calm us down....
'purpose' is big in creationist circles. of course it doesn't exist in
nature. but the infant like thinking patterns of creationists is
touching
Boikat
Yes you are. Especially if you believe nando's bunkum about inanimate
objects making decisions. If you do agree with nando, perhaps you can
explain better then he does, exactly how a rock makes a decision? Do
you have the gonads, or are you just puffing yourself again?
Boikat
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> But still, to look for the origins of *anything* you have to look for
>> the decisions by which they came to be. This includes the variations
>> of kinds. It is not a sufficient explanation in creationism that; one
>> came after another, and the other was different. You have to make
>> explicit where the decisions are in the process.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
>God made the explicit decision within the original creation.
So you claim, but you can find no evidence to support your claim.
>
>The "other" /kind/ of life that evolves from the created 'kind' of life is
>not different. It is "after" his own kind despite any changes it may have
>gone through. A cat will never exist as a cat while diverging into a dog and
>a rat no matter how much time or how many mutations are involved. THAT is
>what these k00ks fail to understand. A created "kind" will evolve with the
>earth. But they will never evolve into something so totally different from
>what they were in the beginning to be considered a complete new life form.
>And any one thinks otherwise is brain damaged. This would be true if there
>was or was not a God. Biology.
>
>God's decision was made 'in the beginning when He gave all living things the
>ability to adapt, to survive, and to change to meet an evolving earth and
>their surroundings. God gave every species the ability to continue the life
>cycle no matter what the conditions of the earth are.
>
>The wolf is being selected out by man and man's impact on the environment.
>God's response (decided in the beginning) is the Dog. So in essence, the
>wolf will always be with us as the Dog. God gave the Wolf an ability to
>adapt to man expanding in the wolf's environment. When man had a smaller
>impact on the Wolf's environment, the wolf served it's purpose in nature.
>But now that mankind is expanding, the wolf will serve a new purpose as the
>dog.
>
>If the dog could no longer serve a purpose in nature then the dog would go
>extinct; which would also make the wolf's 'kind' extinct.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But still, to look for the origins of *anything* you have to look for
> > the decisions by which they came to be. This includes the variations
> > of kinds. It is not a sufficient explanation in creationism that; one
> > came after another, and the other was different. You have to make
> > explicit where the decisions are in the process.
>
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> God made the explicit decision within the original creation.
Where you there to witness this alleged decision?
>
> The "other" /kind/ of life that evolves from the created 'kind' of life is
> not different. It is "after" his own kind despite any changes it may have
> gone through. A cat will never exist as a cat while diverging into a dog and
> a rat no matter how much time or how many mutations are involved. THAT is
> what these k00ks fail to understand. A created "kind" will evolve with the
> earth. But they will never evolve into something so totally different from
> what they were in the beginning to be considered a complete new life form.
> And any one thinks otherwise is brain damaged. This would be true if there
> was or was not a God. Biology.
>
> God's decision was made 'in the beginning when He gave all living things the
> ability to adapt, to survive, and to change to meet an evolving earth and
> their surroundings. God gave every species the ability to continue the life
> cycle no matter what the conditions of the earth are.
Where in the Bible or any other ancient texts does it say that God
bestowed that ability to change, adapt and survive?
>
> The wolf is being selected out by man and man's impact on the environment.
> God's response (decided in the beginning) is the Dog. So in essence, the
> wolf will always be with us as the Dog. God gave the Wolf an ability to
> adapt to man expanding in the wolf's environment. When man had a smaller
> impact on the Wolf's environment, the wolf served it's purpose in nature.
> But now that mankind is expanding, the wolf will serve a new purpose as the
> dog.
>
> If the dog could no longer serve a purpose in nature then the dog would go
> extinct; which would also make the wolf's 'kind' extinct.
So you reckon if dogs become extinct that this will automatically
result in wolves becoming extinct too?
You really do need to study more biology, genetics and other matters
of science.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
creation vs evolution controversy. Admitting micro-evolution is
correct is giving away everything already to the evolutionists in my
opinion. Your insistence on God created kinds seems futile in respect
to your admission of micro-evolution.
The Darwinists do not admit that choices are real, but it seems to me
you only acknowledge choices by God are real. In Darwinist theory
there are no choices, In (M)admans theory only God makes choices, and
only at the beginning.
So again, you need to be more specific about the decisions by which
things come to be.
According to standard creationism at the decision we wont find God but
nothing, creatio ex nihilo. You seem to be wanting to put God in the
equation of creation at the place where nothing should be. The
equation is just open-ended, we see a decision is being made and that
the information that constitutes human beings enters the universe
there from nothing. This still does not prove God exists, it does not
prove God made that choice.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu