Evolution for Creationists
Switch89
On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
used as ammunition in debates).
Part 1
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-one.html
Part 2
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-two.html
Part 3
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-three.html
Part 4
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-four.html
Mr tiktaalik
On 28 Nov, 07:34, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone!
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> used as ammunition in debates).
>
> Part 1http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 2http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 3http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 4http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
Harold Saxon
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> used as ammunition in debates).
>
>
> Part 2http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 3http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 4http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
Excellent stuff you have put up, keep it going!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
nature by a form of intelligent design. Or so to say there is no
natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
to say, it only happens in the imagination. What actually happens, the
actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
in only preserving forms that reproduce.
Try this experiment, get a pair of plants put them on your desk, now
try and see natural selection happening. Then put a cup of coffee, and
a glass of milk on the table, now try and see differential evaporation
succes happening. Gee.... the theory of differential evaporation
succes has just the same structure as the theory of differential
reproductive success. It's nothing more then a useful notional way of
looking at things, just like differential evaporation success is
useful but only notional, and not real.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Cj
news:ec10e06d-6ae7-4fbb...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You're really an ignorant bastard, aren't you? Try to write something that
makes sense... the effort will be tiring but it's good for your soul.
Cj
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
> nature by a form of intelligent design.
Cite?
> Or so to say there is no
> natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
> just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
> to say, it only happens in the imagination.
Your disfunctional imagination is not relevant to anything other than your
"choice" to be ignorant.
>What actually happens, the
> actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
> process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
> in only preserving forms that reproduce.
Sorry, I can't even parse this.
>
> Try this experiment, get a pair of plants put them on your desk, now
> try and see natural selection happening.
Oh, I see where your reasoning has failed you...you don't know anything
about natural selection. If that's what your experiment is supposed to
prove, then I'm sure we can all validate your hypothesis.
>Then put a cup of coffee, and
> a glass of milk on the table, now try and see differential evaporation
> succes happening. Gee.... the theory of differential evaporation
> succes has just the same structure as the theory of differential
> reproductive success. It's nothing more then a useful notional way of
> looking at things, just like differential evaporation success is
> useful but only notional, and not real.
Gee...I guess the earth does not really spin on its axis then, since I can't
see it happening. Powerful stuff you got there nando.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Icarus
> After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
> nature by a form of intelligent design. Or so to say there is no
> natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
> just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
> to say, it only happens in the imagination. What actually happens, the
> actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
> process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
> in only preserving forms that reproduce.
What part of that process requires intelligence?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
if you believe natural selection is real, then you're bound to come to
believe that differential evaporation succes is real. Why the milk and
the coffee, they evaporate in different tempo, so therefore
differential evaporation success is real. They have no counterargument
against this line of reasoning, I've asked, and they don't have. So
that's why they get upset every time I mention that their prize theory
is just a cheap notion, of which there are a dime a dozen.
So my advise is to simply discard natural selection theory as a
notion, and for intelligent design, now that is really happening in
nature and is not just a notion, and there is the information
interpretations of quantum theory to prove that it is happening.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Cj
news:d7ceacb4-f4e5-48eb...@y20g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Like I said, you're an ignorant bastard... your writings are the evidence.
Switch89
Natural Selection has been directly observed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld_20071011.shtml
By the way, why does the designer create things with bad mutations? My
sisters are keeping butterflies right now, and one was born with bent
wings. Why would a designer deliberately do something so cruel?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> What part of that process requires intelligence?
I'm glad you asked that question. The choosing among alternative
futures, and the creation of those alternatives in the first place. So
first thing you should understand is that an ecosystem is behaving
freely, that there are several possible ways it can turn out, and also
that it can create it's own alternatives. Then after you understand
that, you can consider the ways how these decisions are made in
respect to the result of what species come to be, and build up an
understanding of intelligent design theory from there.
And if you want a more comprehensive handle on it, you should look for
any science theory that acknowledges free behaviour. Such as
creationism, but also Dembski with his views on randomness, Dubois
with his "strong anticipation" theory, Amoroso etc. and any other
theory which acknowledges free behaviour will probably help you along
in understanding the gist of intelligent design theory.
But be careful, some theories talk about freedom and alternatives, but
then some of the alternatives can't possibly become realized,
according to their theory. For instance some theories talk about more
fit and less fit organisms as alternatives which are decided on, but
then it is not possible according to the theory that the less fit
organism survives. So the one alternative can't possibly become
realized. So that's another concept of freedom, and deciding entirely,
and has nothing at all to do with intelligent design theory as
creationists understand it.
Also the concept of "weak anticipation" for instance, doesn't
neccessarily have anything to do with intelligent design, but the
concept of "strong anticipation" does. So in looking at theories you
always need to check if it is possible if according to the theory you
are looking at, that in the event all alternatives may become
realized.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Friar Broccoli
> Hi Everyone!
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> used as ammunition in debates).
>
>
> Part 2http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 3http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 4http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
Add me to the list of those who are positively impressed
nando_r...@yahoo.com
observed....
There are no bad or good mutations, or cruelty, in science, Darwinist,
that is all subjective.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d7ceacb4-f4e5-48eb...@y20g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Who or what are you responding to? You've been lurking around here a long
time and have been told that it is good practice to include the relevant
parts of the message you are responding to. You wouldn't be deliberately
omitting responses that make you look foolish are you?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
reply, instead of cutting up posts, and interjecting gibberish?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
tactics. So think about it, if you join the Darwinists, then you will
also simply start intimidating everybody who doesn't agree with you,
that is their way. Can anybody show me a single Darwinist who doesn't
use such tactics? I've never seen any.
It's probably because the Darwinists don't believe freedom is real, so
that tends to make them kind of bigoted, since they don't believe
there are alternatives.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
snex
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah differential evaporation success has also been directly
> observed....
which is true, but trivial, because any given set of droplets is not
genetically related to the droplets that came before it. even when a
droplet comes directly from a previous droplet, its relevant
properties are not the slightly modified properties of that previous
droplet.
when you have objects that give rise to objects that are similar but
not the same as themselves, and those similarities are based on the
relationships between the objects, thats where it gets interesting.
Inez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why don't you write a coherent, reasoned, well thought out piece in
> reply, instead of cutting up posts, and interjecting gibberish?
>
who you're responding to?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70bcdac6-2221-4d71...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Why don't you write a coherent, reasoned, well thought out piece in
> reply, instead of cutting up posts, and interjecting gibberish?
>
Who are you talking about? What cut-up posts?
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Dick C
> Why don't you write a coherent, reasoned, well thought out piece in
> reply, instead of cutting up posts, and interjecting gibberish?
Um, you go first.
--
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...@comcast.net
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah a truckload of logical fallacies from the Darwinists. As before,
> if you believe natural selection is real, then you're bound to come to
> believe that differential evaporation succes is real.
Bwahahahaha!
Nando, this is the silliest thing I've heard since, well, since I read
your last post.
It what way do milk or coffee reproduce? What sort of mutations are
you thinking of? Is the reproductive pool of orgnaisms larger than can
be sustained by the environment?
Your silly example displays your ignorance for the world to see. If
you cannot describe in a simple and basic manner the ToE, then you
cannot refute it.
> Why the milk and
> the coffee, they evaporate in different tempo, so therefore
> differential evaporation success is real.
How so? How does the reproduction of coffee improve if it evaporates
slower (or would that be faster) than milk? WTF are you talking about?
> They have no counterargument
> against this line of reasoning, I've asked, and they don't have.
ROFL.
<wipes tears from eyes>
It's true.
> So
> that's why they get upset every time I mention that their prize theory
> is just a cheap notion, of which there are a dime a dozen.
>
> So my advise is to simply discard natural selection theory as a
> notion, and for intelligent design, now that is really happening in
> nature and is not just a notion, and there is the information
> interpretations of quantum theory to prove that it is happening.
I really think you need a doctor more than you need education.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
<sigh>
Kermit
Kermit
> Hi Everyone!
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> used as ammunition in debates).
>
>
> Part 2http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 3http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
>
> Part 4http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part...
Nicely done.
Kermit
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28 nov, 18:35, "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > What part of that process requires intelligence?
>
> I'm glad you asked that question. The choosing among alternative
> futures, and the creation of those alternatives in the first place. So
> first thing you should understand is that an ecosystem is behaving
> freely, that there are several possible ways it can turn out, and also
> that it can create it's own alternatives.
Interestingly, other Creationists often accuse us of claiming that the
universe created itself, or that species "decided" which way to
mutate. Here you are castigating us because we *don't
anthropomorphize.
Only things with brains make decisions.
Comets don't decide where to orbit.
Atoms don't decide which other atoms to link with.
Storm clouds don't decide when and where to rain.
<snip>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kermit
Icarus
> On 28 nov, 18:35, "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> What part of that process requires intelligence?
>
> I'm glad you asked that question. The choosing among alternative
> futures, and the creation of those alternatives in the first place. So
> first thing you should understand is that an ecosystem is behaving
> freely, that there are several possible ways it can turn out, and also
> that it can create it's own alternatives. Then after you understand
> that, you can consider the ways how these decisions are made in
> respect to the result of what species come to be, and build up an
> understanding of intelligent design theory from there.
<snippity snip>...
If we're talking about 'alternatives' in terms of differences between
individual organisms, why does that require intelligence? Why not chance?
If we're talking about 'choosing' in terms of which individuals get to
reproduce, and how many offspring they have, why does that require
intelligence? Isn't it enough that (say) a particular gazelle was the
slowest in the herd and therefore the only one that the lion could catch?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Icarus" <icar...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5r6565F...@mid.individual.net...
down hills. Therefore, he would say that the herd decided to make that
particular gazelle the slowest, or the ground decided to give way while the
gazelle turned the corner...etc., bullshit, etc.
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Yeah we are talking about alternatives in terms of future
alternatives, as in the future slow gazelle, and the future fast
gazelle. This is not the same thing as a fast gazelle, and a slow
gazelle now.
As before, having accepted that the ecosystem behaves freely (which
you don't seem to accept), you must consider the way the decisions are
made. "Chance did it", is not actually a sufficiently informative way
to describe how decisions are made. There are many decisions being
made in the ecosystem, many of these decisions relate to one another,
so it get's to be very complex how from any of the many alternative
results the one get's to be chosen, and how the alternatives arise in
the first place.
As before, sure the alternatives are restricted, and a slow gazelle
cannot possibly reproduce. So you see, in natural selection theory the
gazelle is an alternative, but in intelligent design theory the slow
gazelle is not an alternative at all, because there exists no such
thing as a future slow gazelle.
You have to look to the future, and there in the future you might see
uh... gazelles with a white spot, and gazelles with a black spot on
the forehead. Both of these are possible, as many, many species, and
varieties are likewise possible. This isn't any issue of what is the
fittest in terms of natural selection, they are both fit. So you see
natural selection theory only deals with a particular constraint on
what can be reproduced, as there are many other constraints on the
possibilities.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
up to the point where you started gibbering about the herd.
The Darwinists ofcourse, believe that if a boulder falls then that was
predetermined to happen the way it did from about 100+ million years
ago, without the slightest possibility of it happening in any
alternative way. That is also basically correct about what Darwinists
believe, that boulders do not make decisions, that there are no
decisions in nature except for the decisions of a few brainy
organisms.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Inez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks, that was basicly correct about what I believe, more or less,
> up to the point where you started gibbering about the herd.
What point? Where? Why don't you include what you're responding too?
It really isn't that hard.
> The Darwinists ofcourse, believe that if a boulder falls then that was
> predetermined to happen the way it did from about 100+ million years
> ago, without the slightest possibility of it happening in any
> alternative way.
No, that's religious people. The whole prophesy thing? That's all
about lack of free will.
Baron Bodissey
Cool! Keep up the good work. However, doesn't having pro-creationist
ads on the same page somewhat vitiate what you are trying to do?
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
Regards,
JR
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Thanks, that was basicly correct about what I believe, more or less,
>up to the point where you started gibbering about the herd.
>
>The Darwinists ofcourse, believe that if a boulder falls then that was
>predetermined to happen the way it did from about 100+ million years
>ago,
Liar!
> without the slightest possibility of it happening in any
>alternative way. That is also basically correct about what Darwinists
>believe, that boulders do not make decisions, that there are no
>decisions in nature except for the decisions of a few brainy
>organisms.
Correct. And we don't include you in that list.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
<ec10e06d-6ae7-4fbb...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
> nature by a form of intelligent design. Or so to say there is no
> natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
> just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
> to say, it only happens in the imagination. What actually happens, the
> actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
> process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
> in only preserving forms that reproduce.
>
> Try this experiment, get a pair of plants put them on your desk, now
> try and see natural selection happening. Then put a cup of coffee, and
> a glass of milk on the table, now try and see differential evaporation
> succes happening. Gee.... the theory of differential evaporation
> succes has just the same structure as the theory of differential
> reproductive success. It's nothing more then a useful notional way of
> looking at things, just like differential evaporation success is
> useful but only notional, and not real.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
What surprises me is that a bunch of Imams don't beat the crap out of
you for your blasphemy. Teddy bears are cute and cuddly, and Mohammed
should be honored to have one named for him. But the way you
misrepresent the scientific process, Mohammed should be embarrassed to
have you as his namesake.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Baron Bodissey
>... in intelligent design theory the slow
> gazelle is not an alternative at all, because there exists no such
> thing as a future slow gazelle.
>
That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
grasp?
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that the cheetah will eat the slow gazelle, then in principle there is
no choice involved in it at all, because then there isn't any
alternative to choose.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
>
> That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
> course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
> it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
> grasp?
Yeah you don't grasp intelligent design theory. When it is a certainty
that the cheetah eats the slow gazelle then that would lead to
conclude that there is no choice involved in it at all, since there is
no alternative.
And what is the "action" of natural selection, to compare the slow
gazelle with the fast gazelle? It's not happening, there exists no
such thing as differential reproductive success in nature, there are
no comparisons made in nature, just as there aren't any comparisons
made on rate of evaporation when you put a cup of coffee and a glass
of milk on the table. The comparison is not real, it is imagination, a
fantasy.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Woland
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 29 nov, 08:10, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
> > course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
> > it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
> > grasp?
>
> Yeah you don't grasp intelligent design theory. When it is a certainty
> that the cheetah eats the slow gazelle then that would lead to
> conclude that there is no choice involved in it at all, since there is
> no alternative.
Wrong. Some cheetahs may not choose the slowest gazelle, or some
cheetahs may be slightly faster which may allow them to have a broader
range of choices or options for a snack. Natural Selection Theory
allows us to make predictions like, faster cheetahs get more food more
often which allows them to have more offspring than other cheetahs.
> And what is the "action" of natural selection, to compare the slow
> gazelle with the fast gazelle? It's not happening, there exists no
> such thing as differential reproductive success in nature, there are
> no comparisons made in nature, just as there aren't any comparisons
> made on rate of evaporation when you put a cup of coffee and a glass
> of milk on the table. The comparison is not real, it is imagination, a
> fantasy.
Actually we can compare how many offspring the faster cheetah has with
how many a slower cheetah has. Though the comparison itself only
exists as we study it, the differing number of offspring does in fact
exist and we would predict that the cheetah with more offspring has
one or more traits that allow that cheetah to be more successful.
Guess what? These predictions turn out to be true! This is natural
Selection! Over many generations the beneficial trait that leads to
the ability to produce more offspring that survive to reproduce will
spread through the population.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:238595c6-032a-453c...@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 nov, 08:10, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
>> course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
>> it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
>> grasp?
>
> Yeah you don't grasp intelligent design theory.
No one does...it's not a theory.
When it is a certainty
> that the cheetah eats the slow gazelle then that would lead to
> conclude that there is no choice involved in it at all, since there is
> no alternative.
Sure there is an alternative. The cheetah could choose the closest
"slowest" gazelle (as there may be more than one), or maybe a faster gazelle
that is strategically cornered, or perhaps some other type of animal that is
even slower than the "slowest" gazelle.
>
> And what is the "action" of natural selection, to compare the slow
> gazelle with the fast gazelle?
The "action" of natural selection in this case is the cheetah choosing the
slowest gazelle. Therefore, it is less likely that "slower" gazelles will
be able to reproduce.
> It's not happening, there exists no
> such thing as differential reproductive success in nature,
Of course there is.
>there are
> no comparisons made in nature,
Darwin's hypothesis was simple: "Natural Selection is a principle by
which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved"...and the
result is that "individuals best adapted to their environments are more
likely to survive and reproduce."
What, specifically, about this do you disagree with?
>just as there aren't any comparisons
> made on rate of evaporation when you put a cup of coffee and a glass
> of milk on the table.
This comparison of yours is just silly. Several posters have raised the
point that milk and coffee don't reproduce and you haven't addressed it?
Why not?
>The comparison is not real, it is imagination, a
> fantasy.
Yes, YOUR comparison of milk and coffee to biology is not real and is a
fantasy. Is that what you meant?
JR
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Martin
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yeah differential evaporation success has also been directly
> observed....
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Yeah, you _CAN_ directly observe differential evaporation.
Get a sensitive enough scale, and you can see that a hot cup of coffe
will lose mass faster than a cold cup of milk.
If you don't have a sensitive scale, you can still see it.
Put your hot coffee cup on a hotplate which keeps it hot (but still
below boiling)
and keep the milk on the countertop next to it.
In a day or two you will see the coffee is evaporating much faster
than the milk.
If you are honest you will admit this.
Martin
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Yeah you don't get intelligent design theory.
There isn't one.
> When it is a certainty
>that the cheetah will eat the slow gazelle, then in principle there is
>no choice involved in it at all, because then there isn't any
>alternative to choose.
The gazelle doesn't get a choice - the cheetah does.
Icarus
We're not talking about 'future alternatives'. We're talking about what
actually happens - e.g:
gazelle with genome X gets eaten, genome X ceases to exist;
gazelle with genome Y has babies, genome Y persists.
Why does that require intelligence?
loua...@yahoo.com
> Hi Everyone!
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> evidence for the Theory.
Nice work. Don't mind Nando. It's nothing he can (or at least, will)
stop himself from doing.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> We're not talking about 'future alternatives'. We're talking about what
> actually happens - e.g:
>
> gazelle with genome X gets eaten, genome X ceases to exist;
> gazelle with genome Y has babies, genome Y persists.
>
> Why does that require intelligence?
Yeah I thought you were considering the ecosystem behaving freely, you
do not, so I'm not interested.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:914633c5-7b91-4ddc...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
It appears you are not interested in any challenges at all to your "ideas".
Why not find some lemmings on usenet that just agree with you?
People are not just going to take your word for things, nando. If you are
going to make assertions, you need to back it up with some data, evidence,
etc. And, if your not interested in answering the hard questions, then you
are a just a charlatan.
Earle Jones
<ec10e06d-6ae7-4fbb...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
> nature by a form of intelligent design. Or so to say there is no
> natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
> just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
> to say, it only happens in the imagination. What actually happens, the
> actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
> process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
> in only preserving forms that reproduce.
>
> Try this experiment, get a pair of plants put them on your desk, now
> try and see natural selection happening. Then put a cup of coffee, and
> a glass of milk on the table, now try and see differential evaporation
> succes happening. Gee.... the theory of differential evaporation
> succes has just the same structure as the theory of differential
> reproductive success. It's nothing more then a useful notional way of
> looking at things, just like differential evaporation success is
> useful but only notional, and not real.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
*
Nando -- you're a fucking idiot!
earle
*
nando_r...@yahoo.com
all sorts of things. The reason that freedom is forbidden for
Darwinists to consider, is because such consideration may lead to
acknowledgement of the spiritual realm.
I know for sure that every one of you Darwinists fears the other
Darwinists, and would not dare to talk about an ecosystem behaving
freely, for fear of sounding unscientific to the other Darwinists.
That is how you become if you follow the Darwinists, you become
oppressed and repressed, about this issue of any kind of free
behaviour. And it's an important issue, don't you think?
The Darwinists just want you to accept this little theory, natural
selection, differential reproductive success. Sounds innocent doesn't
it? But it's a nonsense theory, just like differential evaporation
success is nonsense theory, and with this theory of natural selection
they blockade talk about any kind of free behaviour, including free
behaviour of human beings.
This is not the same with creationists, I have discussed free
behaviour with creationists, and I see creationists discuss free
behaviour amongst themselves, openly. The fact of the matter is that
creation science / intelligent design is the only big
sciencediscipline that takes knowledge about freedom seriously. You
will never get any knowledge about it if you follow the Darwinists,
whatsmore you will very likely get reprimanded by them if you do talk
about it at length.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3492611d-474b-42ca...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, ask a Darwinist to consider free behaviour, then get accused of
> all sorts of things.
You are free to behave in any way you wish. If you assert that a cement
block makes decisions, then you are either an idiot or are delusional. If
you disagree, feel free to show your work on the subject.
> The reason that freedom is forbidden for
> Darwinists to consider, is because such consideration may lead to
> acknowledgement of the spiritual realm.
It's very reasonable to consider the spritual realm. I have, and I see no
reason to accept it as reality. If you accept it, that's ok, but only a
nutter would find it remotely plausible that inanimate objects are capable
of making decisions.
>
> I know for sure that every one of you Darwinists fears the other
> Darwinists, and would not dare to talk about an ecosystem behaving
> freely, for fear of sounding unscientific to the other Darwinists.
No, anybody, but you, would fear being locked up in a loony bin if they
believed what you do.
> That is how you become if you follow the Darwinists, you become
> oppressed and repressed, about this issue of any kind of free
> behaviour. And it's an important issue, don't you think?
No, it's really not important, nando. Do you know what a self-reinforcing
delusion is? If you truly believe what you claim, then I would suggest
professional help for you. Truly.
>
> The Darwinists just want you to accept this little theory, natural
> selection, differential reproductive success. Sounds innocent doesn't
> it?
No, it appears to be a fact...and it would be to you as well if you had not
restricted your knowledge to creationist websites.
>But it's a nonsense theory, just like differential evaporation
> success is nonsense theory, and with this theory of natural selection
> they blockade talk about any kind of free behaviour, including free
> behaviour of human beings.
>
> This is not the same with creationists, I have discussed free
> behaviour with creationists, and I see creationists discuss free
> behaviour amongst themselves, openly.
Sure, why not? Creationists are open to all kinds of silliness. And those
with very weak faith try to substatiate their weak faith by pretending to do
science. Many of them, like your friends over at the Discovery Institute,
are blatant liars and charlatans. But I would bet that even the DI clowns
would not agree with you that their cars decide to take them to work in the
morning.
>The fact of the matter is that
> creation science / intelligent design is the only big
> sciencediscipline <WEAK FAITH> that takes knowledge about freedom
> seriously. You
> will never get any knowledge about it if you follow the Darwinists,
> whatsmore you will very likely get reprimanded by them if you do talk
> about it at length.
The word is "ridiculed", and it is for good reason in your case.
Steven L.
> Hi Everyone!
>
> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> used as ammunition in debates).
I hate to tell you this,
but none of this is of any real value.
I've had plenty of discussions with folks who reject evolution. And
when I try to probe why they are recoiling from it, we always end up
getting into the philosophical and theological implications of
evolution, not just the science.
Americans are an extremely religious people, much more so than Canadians
or Western Europeans. You can't sell evolution to many of them until
you can reconcile evolution with religion. And that turns out to be
harder than you think. I'm not able to do it.
Evolution has implications for the nature of Man:
Man is not as special as religion teaches; the clear distinction between
the human soul and the "animalistic" nature of all other species starts
to be blurred. (Did Homo Neanderthalis have a soul? Did
Pithecanthropus? Does evolution suggest Judeo-Christian dualism is false?)
Also, evolution suggests that Man arose from lower forms of life, rather
than starting out in a near-angelic state in the Garden of Eden and then
falling from grace when Eve partook of forbidden Knowledge. Without the
Fall from grace, the concept of Original Sin, and of Jesus redeeming us
from Man's sins which began with the Fall, could collapse.
What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution and
the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about the
nature of Man with what theology tells us.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Icarus
OK then, let's take another tack: One property which seems to be unique to
intelligence is intention. Humans can anticipate consequences, and act to
bring about a preferred outcome. Evolution is explicitly an undirected
process - it doesn't work towards a goal, it cannot anticipate threats or
benefits and act accordingly. If there was intelligent design involved in
nature, we ought to be able to discern its intention (or at least that it
*has* an intention). Do you see such a thing? If so then what is it, and
what is the evidence for it that undirected evolution cannot account for?
Icarus
<snippity snip>...
> What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution
> and the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
> evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about
> the nature of Man with what theology tells us.
Isn't that a bit like attempting to reconcile microbiology with demon
possession? Why would we want to do that, and what would it mean to do that
anyway? What we really need to sell evolution is to teach kids how to
think, and then teach them what the facts are, and then what those facts
indicate about the origin of living organisms. They will see and understand
that evolution accounts for the origin and nature of humans and other
species in a way that religion does not and cannot do. I think that most
adults who don't believe in evolution never will, but their kids will, if we
teach them right, and that's what is most important. Religious nutters know
this, and that's why they try so hard to corrupt the education system and
poison children's minds.
Friar Broccoli
Quite a lot of scripture is consistent with the soul coming from
the body, for example:
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being;
the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after
that the spiritual.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man
from heaven.
so I'm not sure this needs to be a problem unless someone wants
it to be.
> Also, evolution suggests that Man arose from lower forms of life, rather
> than starting out in a near-angelic state in the Garden of Eden and then
> falling from grace when Eve partook of forbidden Knowledge. Without the
> Fall from grace, the concept of Original Sin, and of Jesus redeeming us
> from Man's sins which began with the Fall, could collapse.
From a careful reading of Genesis it is quite clear that there
were other people around with Adam and Eve. After he had killed
Able, God sent Cain away, causing him to complained (Gen 4:14)
that others would kill him. God replied that He would protect
him from any one. Who where these others? And then who did he
take as a wife? There's also that odd reference to Nephilim in
Genesis 6:4.
A perfectly consistent reading, for example, would have it that
one man (Adam) had evolved beyond innocence, and that was the
fall. As we all know, evolution doesn't always produce the best
possible results.
Obviously this requires that scripture be read as allegory, but
no reading can be free from interpretation. How, for example,
could Noah have taken both 2 and 7 birds of every kind onto the
Ark? Clearly the story of Noah was itself allegory, for
extinction events perhaps.
> What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution and
> the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
> evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about the
> nature of Man with what theology tells us.
I agree that you cannot ask people to deny their religious
beliefs in order to accept evolution, but that's a hard sell
for most of the crowd in here.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Baron Bodissey
Oh, okay. Of course it's more complex than I wrote. I just didn't want
to hurt Nando's brain.
Such as it is.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> OK then, let's take another tack: One property which seems to be unique to
> intelligence is intention. Humans can anticipate consequences, and act to
> bring about a preferred outcome. Evolution is explicitly an undirected
> process - it doesn't work towards a goal, it cannot anticipate threats or
> benefits and act accordingly. If there was intelligent design involved in
> nature, we ought to be able to discern its intention (or at least that it
> *has* an intention). Do you see such a thing? If so then what is it, and
> what is the evidence for it that undirected evolution cannot account for?
Goalbased behaviour of people, in the way you talk about it, isn't
free behaviour, since the human being goes inevitably towards the
goal, without the possibility of an alternative. In any case what you
are talking about mostly depends on if things in an ecosystem are
similar to what constitutes memory in a human being.
As far as I can tell intelligent design is already basically
substantiated if the way decisions are made in nature is not
sufficiently described by "chance did it". So if free behaviour in
nature is more comprehensive then chance did it, then we would get
further away from your notions of undirectedness, and closer towards
your notions of intention. Gee, the evidence supports that the way
decisions are made in nature is a lot more sophisticated then chance
did it.
There is obviously always a direction to what organisms come to be.
When a system is not directed then I take that to mean that there is
no other, or higher system directing the system you are looking at,
which means that the system is self-directed. So as like the body
system in it's entirety directing an organ, or as like one person
directing another person.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
integrity. I've seen this method applied in school, and every time
teachers were doing that, it struck me that the children's personality
was being undermined. And it does not matter if you teach them to
think this way or the other way, it is just the simple fact that they
were taught to think in any way at all other then they chose
themselves, which violated their integrity. It is simply a crime.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
down a slope, then it is certainly very beautiful to consider that the
pebbles rolling down was predetermined 100+ million years ago. But
then the beauty starts to disappear when you consider that it's not
true, and that decisions are made in nature all the time.
People have to decide for themselves which is the more ridiculous, the
millions of years of predetermination, or decisions taking place in
nature all the time.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Jenny Brien
--
Is this the God who made the nematode?
Is this the God who made the kangaroo?
Woland
<snip>
This is most likely an artifact from stitching two different creation
stories together. One of the stories in genesis has God specifically
making Adam while the other only says that God created mankind,
implying that he created a group of them, which is more in line with
the Sumerian creation story. So all of the mentions of other people
are from the group creation story.
SeppoP
> In the "*I* have *never* done such a thing" category
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:44:58 -0000, nando_r...@yahoo.com
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> To teach people how to think is a violation of their personal
>> integrity. I've seen this method applied in school, and every time
>> teachers were doing that, it struck me that the children's personality
>> was being undermined. And it does not matter if you teach them to
>> think this way or the other way, it is just the simple fact that they
>> were taught to think in any way at all other then they chose
>> themselves, which violated their integrity. It is simply a crime.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>>
>
>
>
Despite the obvious (but *necessary*) identification of the culprit, I'll second.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Woland
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf21ab95-76c5-4130...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
This goes completely against what you believe, nando. Obviously, the books,
pencils and chalkboards decided to teach the students in a way you don't
like.
Why don't those damn classrooms and bookbags decide to educate our kids
better?!?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
personality. Every student in theaterschools in the Netherlands failed
to pass this year. That sort of thing is because of things like that
they get to be taught how to think in highschool, it stunts their
personal growth. Imagine teaching Einstein, Mozart, Garbo, etc. how to
think in school. Then we wouldn't have Mozart, Einstein or Garbo. So
another rubbish idea from the Darwinist crowd, thanks for trying, but
no thanks.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
LT
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah a truckload of logical fallacies from the Darwinists. As before,
> if you believe natural selection is real, then you're bound to come to
> believe that differential evaporation succes is real. Why the milk and
> the coffee, they evaporate in different tempo, so therefore
> differential evaporation success is real. They have no counterargument
> against this line of reasoning, I've asked, and they don't have. So
> that's why they get upset every time I mention that their prize theory
> is just a cheap notion, of which there are a dime a dozen.
>
> So my advise is to simply discard natural selection theory as a
> notion, and for intelligent design, now that is really happening in
> nature and is not just a notion, and there is the information
> interpretations of quantum theory to prove that it is happening.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Call it a hunch, but somehow I think you lack even basic understanding
of terms like:
logic
fallacy
natural selection
differential evaporation success (lol?)
counter-argument
reasoning
theory
intelligent design
nature
information
interpretations
quantum theory
prove
I recommend you spend a few decades in a library.
LT
LT
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7ceacb4-f4e5-48eb...@y20g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yeah a truckload of logical fallacies from the Darwinists. As before,
> > if you believe natural selection is real, then you're bound to come to
> > believe that differential evaporation succes is real. Why the milk and
> > the coffee, they evaporate in different tempo, so therefore
> > differential evaporation success is real. They have no counterargument
> > against this line of reasoning, I've asked, and they don't have. So
> > that's why they get upset every time I mention that their prize theory
> > is just a cheap notion, of which there are a dime a dozen.
>
> > So my advise is to simply discard natural selection theory as a
> > notion, and for intelligent design, now that is really happening in
> > nature and is not just a notion, and there is the information
> > interpretations of quantum theory to prove that it is happening.
>
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> time and have been told that it is good practice to include the relevant
> parts of the message you are responding to. You wouldn't be deliberately
> omitting responses that make you look foolish are you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe he is doing a more than ample job of demonstrating his own
foolishness without our help.
LT
LT
> Jenny Brien wrote:
> > In the "*I* have *never* done such a thing" category
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> To teach people how to think is a violation of their personal
> >> integrity. I've seen this method applied in school, and every time
> >> teachers were doing that, it struck me that the children's personality
> >> was being undermined. And it does not matter if you teach them to
> >> think this way or the other way, it is just the simple fact that they
> >> were taught to think in any way at all other then they chose
> >> themselves, which violated their integrity. It is simply a crime.
>
> >> regards,
> >> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> Despite the obvious (but *necessary*) identification of the culprit, I'll second.
>
> --
> Seppo P.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I third this nomination, which may very well be the Chez Watt of all
Chez Watts.
LT
LT
So you believe that the Earth, and I suspect the Universe, requires
constant and infinite mico-management, for every possible event
regardless of how small? And that your God is said manager? You call
that spiritual? I do believe you have achieved a whole new level of
lunacy not seen before, even in this newsgroup.
Call the hospital, Nando. Seriously.
LT
Friar Broccoli
The inference to the existence of other people from the story
of Cain cannot be such an artifact because it is a continuation
of the story of Adam.
I know that scholars believe that Genesis is the melding of two
(or more) creation stories. For me the cause of the contradictions
is not important, because whatever the cause the authors must
have been fully aware of those contradictions. If the authors knew
for certain that their work could not be literally true, then Genesis
must necessarily be read as allegory.
If Genesis is allegory then it must be interpreted in the light of
the other evidence God has left us.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Jenny Brien"
<jenn...@figuk.plus.com>:
>In the "*I* have *never* done such a thing" category
>
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:44:58 -0000, nando_r...@yahoo.com
><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> To teach people how to think is a violation of their personal
>> integrity. I've seen this method applied in school, and every time
>> teachers were doing that, it struck me that the children's personality
>> was being undermined. And it does not matter if you teach them to
>> think this way or the other way, it is just the simple fact that they
>> were taught to think in any way at all other then they chose
>> themselves, which violated their integrity. It is simply a crime.
>>
>> regards,
>> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Damn! I'm going to have to start reading Nando's drool
again; this one is so far from anything rational that he's
outdone even himself. But it's obvious he cleverly avoided
the trap set for him in school.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Cory Albrecht
> When you walk on a mountain, and you happen to see some pebbles roll
> down a slope, then it is certainly very beautiful to consider that the
> pebbles rolling down was predetermined 100+ million years ago. But
Only you, Nando, would think that people who agree with the theory of
evolution would think that pebbles rolling down hill was predetermined
millions of years previously.
> then the beauty starts to disappear when you consider that it's not
> true, and that decisions are made in nature all the time.
Comets do not decide to change their orbits, Nando. Nor do pebbles
decide how they will roll down hill.
> People have to decide for themselves which is the more ridiculous, the
> millions of years of predetermination, or decisions taking place in
> nature all the time.
What's really ridiculous is that you think that the pro-evolution camp
believes in predetermined events. Typically that is a religious
position, that God know all which will happen. The general correlation
is that the more Fundamentalist (Christian or Muslim) one is, the more
one believes in predeterminism. I've yet to me a an atheist or theistic
evolutionist that does.
Cory Albrecht
stew dean
LT sums uo what you've been saying so far. You started by saying that
there are 'decision points' and later expanded that to say they happen
a the electron level and that they are caused by 'nothing' but are the
product of the spiritual realm.
You say that these 'decisions' happen in the spiritual realm - which
means they happen in the realm of the super natural - which is where
any god would reside and rule. You believe in god so therefore this
spiritual realm is micro managing the universe.
That is what you've been saying, or perhaps to make it that simple
appears to be against your drive to make things as vauge as possible.
After all if no one understads you they can't argue against you!
I hold what LT describes is exatly what you believe after reading
probably hundreds of your posts.
The chanes of you saying what you do believe if this is not the case
is about zero (but you will claim you have said it 'as before').
You're a very simple creature to read Nando.
Stew Dean
Mike L
Who is this "Gee" person you keep speaking to? It would be just swell
to find out, egad.
--
Mike.
Dave in Lake Villa
theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in nature
by a form of intelligent design. '
REPLY: Its important to note , that, Natural Selection entails
absolutely NO intelligence at all although Evolutionists would like us
to believe that it does in the manner in which it is discussed --
further proof that 'atheists' know that Intelligence is required for
such things. To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
chemicals eventually became a 206 bone human being with a brain which
can process 2,000,000 bits of info per second , for the sake of denying
an intelligent Creator of the Universe so one doesnt have to be
responsible to him, is the epitomie of intellectual dishonesty and
self deciet.
Last time i checked, a Computer needed alot of intelligence to design
it, engineer it, build it, program it, and reprogram it ; yet it
pales in comparison to the human brains capacity and workings --- and
yet 8-10% of the population desperately wants to believe it just
happened by 'natural selection' / time / chance / and ultimately
arriving from NON LIFE .
I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist --- ( the compelling book by
the same title offered thru www.impactapologetics.com ... the book
that even atheists write in to say how compelling it is, yet still wont
admit there is a Creator thereby proving its a Will problem and not a
Mind problem).
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
> To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
> chemicals
Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom on it,
he always finds whodunit!
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Wirehair
news:3492611d-474b-42ca...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, ask a Darwinist to consider free behaviour, then get accused of
> all sorts of things. The reason that freedom is forbidden for
> Darwinists to consider, is because such consideration may lead to
> acknowledgement of the spiritual realm.
>
How long have you felt this way?
> I know for sure that every one of you Darwinists fears the other
> Darwinists, and would not dare to talk about an ecosystem behaving
> freely, for fear of sounding unscientific to the other Darwinists.
>
Did your mother tell you this?
> That is how you become if you follow the Darwinists, you become
> oppressed and repressed, about this issue of any kind of free
> behaviour. And it's an important issue, don't you think?
>
How do you feel about your mother?
> The Darwinists just want you to accept this little theory, natural
> selection, differential reproductive success. Sounds innocent doesn't
> it? But it's a nonsense theory, just like differential evaporation
> success is nonsense theory, and with this theory of natural selection
> they blockade talk about any kind of free behaviour, including free
> behaviour of human beings.
>
Was this a revelation from the spirit world?
> This is not the same with creationists, I have discussed free
> behaviour with creationists, and I see creationists discuss free
> behaviour amongst themselves, openly. The fact of the matter is that
> creation science / intelligent design is the only big
> sciencediscipline that takes knowledge about freedom seriously. You
> will never get any knowledge about it if you follow the Darwinists,
> whatsmore you will very likely get reprimanded by them if you do talk
> about it at length.
Did your teachers reprimand you or was it only your mother?
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
>
> > To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
> > chemicals
>
> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom on it,
> he always finds whodunit!
Trouble is, when you put luminol in the chemicals, you end up with just
a mess. Better to find some witnesses.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Walter Bushell
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
>
> > To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
> > chemicals
>
> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom on it,
> he always finds whodunit!
A protozoan is an "advanced" life for as life forms go. One of those
weird and bizarre eucaryot thingies.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1i8h0xb.lf050p17yxjw1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
>> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
>>
>>> To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
>>> chemicals
>>
>> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom on it,
>> he always finds whodunit!
>
> Trouble is, when you put luminol in the chemicals, you end up with just
> a mess. Better to find some witnesses.
>
Grissom knows that eyewitnesses are of dubious value. He needs physical
evidence.
Ken
wrote:
> 'After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in nature
> by a form of intelligent design. '
>
> REPLY: Its important to note , that, Natural Selection entails
To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD chemicals .
I don't know of any LIVE chemicals...but then you won't even
acknowledge that EVERYTHING alive is a direct result of chemical
reactions
> I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist ---SHIT!! You don't even have Enough Intelligence to be a Moron
Free Lunch
DaveInL...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote in
<18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>:
>'After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
>theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in nature
>by a form of intelligent design. '
>
>REPLY: Its important to note , that, Natural Selection entails
>absolutely NO intelligence at all although Evolutionists would like us
>to believe that it does in the manner in which it is discussed --
You misrepresent what scientists have discovered.
>further proof that 'atheists' know that Intelligence is required for
>such things.
False. Once again, you are misrepresenting what is happening and drawing
an invalid conclusion.
>To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
>chemicals eventually became a 206 bone human being with a brain which
>can process 2,000,000 bits of info per second , for the sake of denying
>an intelligent Creator of the Universe so one doesnt have to be
>responsible to him, is the epitomie of intellectual dishonesty and
>self deciet.
Your decision to describe the problem the way you did shows that you are
completely happy engaging in intellectual dishonesty and are completely
unwilling to actually learn about the evidence that has been gathered
over time. Your lies bring shame to the religion you claim to belong to
and the God you claim to worship.
>Last time i checked, a Computer needed alot of intelligence to design
>it, engineer it, build it, program it, and reprogram it ; yet it
>pales in comparison to the human brains capacity and workings --- and
>yet 8-10% of the population desperately wants to believe it just
>happened by 'natural selection' / time / chance / and ultimately
>arriving from NON LIFE .
It is true that you have an analogy. It is a completely faulty analogy,
but it is one. Had you not chosen to remain ignorant of science, you
would never have made such a stupid, ignorant statement. Go and learn.
Stop lying about the world.
>I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist --- ( the compelling book by
>the same title offered thru www.impactapologetics.com ... the book
>that even atheists write in to say how compelling it is, yet still wont
>admit there is a Creator thereby proving its a Will problem and not a
>Mind problem).
The book is a collection of lies and misleading commentary. Atheism does
not ask for any faith. Those who claim otherwise are lying.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:48:43 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
> (in article <1i8h0xb.lf050p17yxjw1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
>
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
> >> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
> >>
> >>> To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
> >>> chemicals
> >>
> >> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom
> >> on it, he always finds whodunit!
> >
> > Trouble is, when you put luminol in the chemicals, you end up with just
> > a mess. Better to find some witnesses.
> >
>
> Grissom knows that eyewitnesses are of dubious value. He needs physical
> evidence.
Yes. I was playing on the "were you there?" trope, and being ironic
about Grissom.
Gregory A Greenman
@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Baron Bodissey <mct5548
@yahoo.com> declared...
> On Nov 28, 2:34 am, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone!
> >
> > On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
> > Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
> > could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
> > evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
> > suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
> > creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
> > used as ammunition in debates).
>
> ads on the same page somewhat vitiate what you are trying to do?
Those are Google Ads. He has no control over them. Google chooses
what ads are placed there by key words.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Icarus
> On 30 nov, 01:42, "Icarus" <icarus...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> OK then, let's take another tack: One property which seems to be
>> unique to intelligence is intention. Humans can anticipate
>> consequences, and act to bring about a preferred outcome. Evolution
>> is explicitly an undirected process - it doesn't work towards a
>> goal, it cannot anticipate threats or benefits and act accordingly.
>> If there was intelligent design involved in nature, we ought to be
>> able to discern its intention (or at least that it *has* an
>> intention). Do you see such a thing? If so then what is it, and
>> what is the evidence for it that undirected evolution cannot account
>> for?
>
> Goalbased behaviour of people, in the way you talk about it, isn't
> free behaviour, since the human being goes inevitably towards the
> goal, without the possibility of an alternative. In any case what you
> are talking about mostly depends on if things in an ecosystem are
> similar to what constitutes memory in a human being.
>
> As far as I can tell intelligent design is already basically
> substantiated if the way decisions are made in nature is not
> sufficiently described by "chance did it". So if free behaviour in
> nature is more comprehensive then chance did it, then we would get
> further away from your notions of undirectedness, and closer towards
> your notions of intention. Gee, the evidence supports that the way
> decisions are made in nature is a lot more sophisticated then chance
> did it.
What is that evidence, and how does it contradict the notion that the origin
of living organisms is an undirected process?
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever, I saw it happening with my own eyes, it undermines people's
> personality. Every student in theaterschools in the Netherlands failed
> to pass this year. That sort of thing is because of things like that
> they get to be taught how to think in highschool, it stunts their
> personal growth. Imagine teaching Einstein, Mozart, Garbo, etc. how to
> think in school. Then we wouldn't have Mozart, Einstein or Garbo.
Nando,
I'm not suprised to hear you say this, but you are, again, very wrong.
Learning how to think is a very important skill just like many of the
thousands of other skills we all learn. Everything you learn does
change you and with nearly all balanced education it makes a person
better, smarter and more able to live a successful life.
Lack of education leaves to hardship, suffering, racism and vilonce as
a way to solve problems. In short if you want a peaceful world
education is the way to go about achiving that, I don't think you
would disagree with that.
Now where you would disagree is what is taught. In this case we are
talking about thinking, or more correctly, critical thinking. These
are series of mental tools anyone can use to learn quicker and also to
determine what in a person's environment is important and what is
likely to be misleading. For example critical thinking says that all
arguments can be valid if they are supported by a clear argument where
all the steps work and objectivity. Objectivity includes evidence and
the ability for someone to explore someone elses ideas to test it's
validity. Good ideas tend to work by themselves and don't need to be
'owned' by anyone. Critical thinking is one of those ideas - it works.
So learning how to think makes learning much easier. If you never
learnt this, which appears to be the case, chances are you'll have no
way to work out what is real and what is just wishful thinking caused
by your ego. Left to our own devices with minimal information we can
make all kinds of crap and it's very likely the less you know, the
more you think you know. Often the more knowledgable a person gets the
more humble they are likely to be. I know when I was a teenager I
thought I'd worked out how the universe worked and what life was all
about - now I know what I know is a drop in the ocean - but I know
enough to spot a bad idea most of the time.
I can also assure you that Mozart and Einstein both learnt how to
think and how to create. You arnt born with knowledge, you are born
with a basic set of skills that allow you too kick start learning. You
are also not born with any real talents - they are all learnt as well.
The ability to learn could be partly genetic but the vast majority of
it is down to personal experience.
The glory of this is that any person has a shot of doing most things -
that's true freedom. The alternative? Well it appears you think that
you are a passive creature that is fed things and are born with a pre
defined set of skills etc. That doesnt sound good to me.
In short - learning how to think is a vital skill and is what schools
and universities are mostly about - in fact talk to any teacher,
especially at university level, and they are very likely to agree that
teaching how to think is more important that teaching what to think.
Why would you want people not to be able to think clearly? Do you
think that people are born with a natural sense of critical thinking?
No. No more than we are born with a need for religion, a myth I see
you've bought into.
Stew Dean
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1i8hqf3.vtsrym11yhimpN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:48:43 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
>> (in article <1i8h0xb.lf050p17yxjw1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
>>
>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
>>>> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
>>>>
>>>>> To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
>>>>> chemicals
>>>>
>>>> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom
>>>> on it, he always finds whodunit!
>>>
>>> Trouble is, when you put luminol in the chemicals, you end up with just
>>> a mess. Better to find some witnesses.
>>>
>>
>> Grissom knows that eyewitnesses are of dubious value. He needs physical
>> evidence.
>
> Yes. I was playing on the "were you there?" trope, and being ironic
> about Grissom.
>
I thought so...
Perhaps we should just put Horatio Caine on it instead. He doesn't need
witnesses or evidence, just targets.
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:59:12 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
> (in article <1i8hqf3.vtsrym11yhimpN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
>
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 10:48:43 -0500, John Wilkins wrote
> >> (in article <1i8h0xb.lf050p17yxjw1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
> >>
> >>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:57:23 -0500, Dave in Lake Villa wrote
> >>>> (in article <18613-47...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>):
> >>>>
> >>>>> To think that a one celled protozoa which came from DEAD
> >>>>> chemicals
> >>>>
> >>>> Who killed the chemicals? We demand an investigation! Put Gil Grissom
> >>>> on it, he always finds whodunit!
> >>>
> >>> Trouble is, when you put luminol in the chemicals, you end up with just
> >>> a mess. Better to find some witnesses.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Grissom knows that eyewitnesses are of dubious value. He needs physical
> >> evidence.
> >
> > Yes. I was playing on the "were you there?" trope, and being ironic
> > about Grissom.
> >
>
> I thought so...
>
> Perhaps we should just put Horatio Caine on it instead. He doesn't need
> witnesses or evidence, just targets.
And annoying as hell clichés. I just want to smack him around for a bit
every time he opens his mouth. Grissom, though, resonates. He's
Asperger's, has flaws, thinks it through, and protects his people.
Augray
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in <13kuk95...@corp.supernews.com>
:
>Switch89 wrote:
>> Hi Everyone!
>>
>> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
>> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
>> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
>> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
>> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
>> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
>> used as ammunition in debates).
>
>I hate to tell you this,
>but none of this is of any real value.
>
>I've had plenty of discussions with folks who reject evolution. And
>when I try to probe why they are recoiling from it, we always end up
>getting into the philosophical and theological implications of
>evolution, not just the science.
Why is evolution different from astronomy in this regard? The Earth is
no longer the center of the universe, yet virtually no one seems to
have any problems with the philosophical and theological implications
of that.
>Americans are an extremely religious people, much more so than Canadians
>or Western Europeans. You can't sell evolution to many of them until
>you can reconcile evolution with religion.
Rather, some people's version of religion. Others have no problem
reconciling the two.
>And that turns out to be
>harder than you think. I'm not able to do it.
Why not?
>Evolution has implications for the nature of Man:
>
>Man is not as special as religion teaches; the clear distinction between
>the human soul and the "animalistic" nature of all other species starts
>to be blurred. (Did Homo Neanderthalis have a soul? Did
>Pithecanthropus? Does evolution suggest Judeo-Christian dualism is false?)
Why would this prevent the acceptance of evolution? It is, after all,
what the evidence points to.
>Also, evolution suggests that Man arose from lower forms of life, rather
>than starting out in a near-angelic state in the Garden of Eden and then
>falling from grace when Eve partook of forbidden Knowledge. Without the
>Fall from grace, the concept of Original Sin, and of Jesus redeeming us
>from Man's sins which began with the Fall, could collapse.
Rather, your personal opinion of the motives for his redemption could
collapse.
>What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution and
>the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
>evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about the
>nature of Man with what theology tells us.
It appears that such a discussion has already taken place, since a
large number of Christians accept the reality of evolution.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1i8iqgt.1w49uh71nda2jqN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>):
I've stopped watching CSI:South Beach because I can't stand Caine; if some
cop in Dade _really_ pranced around like that, someone, possibly another cop,
would have shot him long ago. CSI:South Beach is less realistic than Miami
Vice and (when I last watched) was rapidly approaching Silk Stalkings. I
watch most, but not all, episodes of CSI:Manhattan. But I'm in the process of
getting the DVDs for the original and still the best.
Inez
> On Nov 29, 10:39 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 29 nov, 08:10, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
> > > course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
> > > it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
> > > grasp?
>
> > Yeah you don't grasp intelligent design theory. When it is a certainty
> > that the cheetah eats the slow gazelle then that would lead to
> > conclude that there is no choice involved in it at all, since there is
> > no alternative.
>
> Wrong. Some cheetahs may not choose the slowest gazelle, or some
> cheetahs may be slightly faster which may allow them to have a broader
> range of choices or options for a snack. Natural Selection Theory
> allows us to make predictions like, faster cheetahs get more food more
> often which allows them to have more offspring than other cheetahs.
I disagree. As I understand it, Cheetah's never prosper.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:daf00478-c73b-4f50...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Stop lion, Inez...
Walter Bushell
<daf00478-c73b-4f50...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree. As I understand it, Cheetah's never prosper.
Lions take most to their kills.
John Wilkins
Friar Broccoli
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 8:10 am, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 29, 10:39 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On 29 nov, 08:10, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's because the cheetah ate it. Natural selection in action. Of
> > > > > course there's choice involved, but it's the cheetah that chooses and
> > > > > it always chooses the slowest gazelle. How difficult is that to
> > > > > grasp?
>
> > > > Yeah you don't grasp intelligent design theory. When it is a certainty
> > > > that the cheetah eats the slow gazelle then that would lead to
> > > > conclude that there is no choice involved in it at all, since there is
> > > > no alternative.
>
> > > Wrong. Some cheetahs may not choose the slowest gazelle, or some
> > > cheetahs may be slightly faster which may allow them to have a broader
> > > range of choices or options for a snack. Natural Selection Theory
> > > allows us to make predictions like, faster cheetahs get more food more
> > > often which allows them to have more offspring than other cheetahs.
>
> > I disagree. As I understand it, Cheetah's never prosper.
>
> So they must be altruists...
No, the Gal zels to someone else instead.
Friar Broccoli
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:54:13 -0500, "Steven L."
> :
>
>> Switch89 wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone!
>
>>> On My Blog, I recently began a series called "Evolution for
>>> Creationists". The Goal was to explain Evolution in a way that people
>>> could understand, and to show just some of the highly convincing
>>> evidence for the Theory. If you are already well read on evolution, I
>>> suggest that you skip to the fourth part, which addresses common
>>> creationist questions, and shows why they are dead wrong. (This can be
>>> used as ammunition in debates).
>
>> I hate to tell you this,
>> but none of this is of any real value.
>
>> I've had plenty of discussions with folks who reject evolution. And
>> when I try to probe why they are recoiling from it, we always end up
>> getting into the philosophical and theological implications of
>> evolution, not just the science.
>
> Why is evolution different from astronomy in this regard? The Earth is
> no longer the center of the universe, yet virtually no one seems to
> have any problems with the philosophical and theological implications
> of that.
I don't see this as relevant to the problem at hand, but I
suspect that it boils down to the fact that the nature of
celestial bodies is not clearly related to the nature and
essence of man.
>> Americans are an extremely religious people, much more so than Canadians
>> or Western Europeans. You can't sell evolution to many of them until
>> you can reconcile evolution with religion.
>
> Rather, some people's version of religion. Others have no problem
> reconciling the two.
Obviously true. We need to put some effort into showing
believers who have such problems that the obstacles they see
are imaginary.
>> And that turns out to be
>> harder than you think. I'm not able to do it.
>
> Why not?
>
>> Evolution has implications for the nature of Man:
>
>> Man is not as special as religion teaches; the clear distinction between
>> the human soul and the "animalistic" nature of all other species starts
>> to be blurred. (Did Homo Neanderthalis have a soul? Did
>> Pithecanthropus? Does evolution suggest Judeo-Christian dualism is false?)
>
> Why would this prevent the acceptance of evolution? It is, after all,
> what the evidence points to.
Because it calls into question their image of the nature of
man. As you know, people who don't want to accept the evidence
can readily dismiss it if they are so motivated.
In some cases it will be easier to convince people to look
dispassionately at the evidence after they have been convinced
that their other core beliefs will not thus be threatened.
>> Also, evolution suggests that Man arose from lower forms of life, rather
>> than starting out in a near-angelic state in the Garden of Eden and then
>> falling from grace when Eve partook of forbidden Knowledge. Without the
>> Fall from grace, the concept of Original Sin, and of Jesus redeeming us
>> from Man's sins which began with the Fall, could collapse.
>
> Rather, your personal opinion of the motives for his redemption could
> collapse.
Again quite true. To make the task of explaining evolution
easier we need to provide an alternative construct of
redemption etc., which does not challenge their fundamental
beliefs.
>> What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution and
>> the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
>> evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about the
>> nature of Man with what theology tells us.
>
> It appears that such a discussion has already taken place, since a
> large number of Christians accept the reality of evolution.
Not everybody has participated in that discussion, just as not
everybody has learned the evidence in support of evolution. To
effectively promote evolution we need to be able to present
both sets of arguments.
Cordially
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Susan S
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
Most of the close-up exteriors for CSI:Miami are shot here in Long
Beach, California. I watch occasionally and yell to my husband (sensibly
doing something else in another room) something like, "Hey, they're in
[this or that neighborhood] now."
Susan Silberstein
Harold Saxon
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> After researching the issue scientists found that natural selection
> theory is a post hoc rationalization of what actually happens in
> natural selection in nature, differential reproductive success is real
> just as much as differential mountainheight success is real, which is
> to say, it only happens in the imagination. What actually happens, the
> actual formation of living beings, is an informed and reasoned
> process, which process is constrained in various aspects, for instance
> in only preserving forms that reproduce.
Which scientists would these be? Perhaps you could provide a citation
or two to support your posting.
>
> Try this experiment, get a pair of plants put them on your desk, now
> try and see natural selection happening. Then put a cup of coffee, and
> a glass of milk on the table, now try and see differential evaporation
> succes happening. Gee.... the theory of differential evaporation
> succes has just the same structure as the theory of differential
> reproductive success. It's nothing more then a useful notional way of
> looking at things, just like differential evaporation success is
> useful but only notional, and not real.
Obviously you are referring to someone else's allegations against
natural selection being a real process.
It would be nice if you could say where all this stuff is coming from.
And by the way you didn't say whether the cup of coffee was really hot
or stone cold.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Augray
<Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in
<7e7a5f13-7b8e-4be6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
Why not? One could argue that the pinnacle of creation should be
located at its center. If the Earth is not at the center of the
universe, how can humanity be the purpose of creation?
>>> Americans are an extremely religious people, much more so than Canadians
>>> or Western Europeans. You can't sell evolution to many of them until
>>> you can reconcile evolution with religion.
>>
>> Rather, some people's version of religion. Others have no problem
>> reconciling the two.
>
> Obviously true.
But apparently not to Switch89.
> We need to put some effort into showing
> believers who have such problems that the obstacles they see
> are imaginary.
That depends on the problems they purport to have.
>>> And that turns out to be
>>> harder than you think. I'm not able to do it.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>>> Evolution has implications for the nature of Man:
>>
>>> Man is not as special as religion teaches; the clear distinction between
>>> the human soul and the "animalistic" nature of all other species starts
>>> to be blurred. (Did Homo Neanderthalis have a soul? Did
>>> Pithecanthropus? Does evolution suggest Judeo-Christian dualism is false?)
>>
>> Why would this prevent the acceptance of evolution? It is, after all,
>> what the evidence points to.
>
> Because it calls into question their image of the nature of
> man.
And they don't have that problem if they believe that Adam was made
from dust?
> As you know, people who don't want to accept the evidence
> can readily dismiss it if they are so motivated.
Anyone can do that about evidence for anything, but that doesn't mean
that they should be taken seriously.
> In some cases it will be easier to convince people to look
> dispassionately at the evidence after they have been convinced
> that their other core beliefs will not thus be threatened.
That really depends on what their core beliefs are.
>>> Also, evolution suggests that Man arose from lower forms of life, rather
>>> than starting out in a near-angelic state in the Garden of Eden and then
>>> falling from grace when Eve partook of forbidden Knowledge. Without the
>>> Fall from grace, the concept of Original Sin, and of Jesus redeeming us
>>> from Man's sins which began with the Fall, could collapse.
>>
>> Rather, your personal opinion of the motives for his redemption could
>> collapse.
>
> Again quite true. To make the task of explaining evolution
> easier we need to provide an alternative construct of
> redemption etc., which does not challenge their fundamental
> beliefs.
I must admit that I don't see how evolution does that, any more than a
spherical Earth does.
>>> What we REALLY need to sell evolution is a discussion of "Evolution and
>>> the Judeo-Christian Worldview," which attempts to reconcile what
>>> evolution (and neuroscience and much else in science) tells us about the
>>> nature of Man with what theology tells us.
>>
>> It appears that such a discussion has already taken place, since a
>> large number of Christians accept the reality of evolution.
>
> Not everybody has participated in that discussion,
I daresay that they're not interested.