The Theory of Everything!

[Mr.Dunsapy]

As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."

The Theory of Everything

Here are 3 facts:
1 everything comes from life
2 humans get more humans
3 there is design in everything.

Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
So who really is following the science?
These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.

I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

[wiki trix]

On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life
> 2 humans get more humans
> 3 there is design in everything.

Sorry, but these are not facts. In fact, these are not even
intelligible word sequences, as far as I can tell. I wish you could
express yourself better.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:

> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything

That usually denotes a Grand Unified Theory and announcing one in this way may
be construed as somewhat pompous.

> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life

Last time I checked loads of stuff did not come from life. Daylight, for one.

> 2 humans get more humans

sheep get more sheep.

> 3 there is design in everything.

Says you. Please define "design" and describe how to recognize it.

> Creation is supported by all three.

Creation is supported by shitloads of gullible people, not facts. That seems
to be a major flaw in you Theory of Everything.

> But the scientists are against all three.

Not just scientists. A prima vista it looks like a load of bullocks.

> So who really is following the science?

Not you, obviously.

> These are facts like
> gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it
> is still gravity that holds us to the ground.

And this pertains to your "Theory of Everything" how exactly?

> I am serious about this.

I was afraid you might be. For a short while, i entertained the vain hope
you were just kidding, but alas... You're being serious.

> So please answer with evidence.

To what? You still have to formulate anything even resembling a decent
hypothesis, let alone a theory of everything.

> I say this
> because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science
> when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

While, in contrast, you try pure unadulterated bullshit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ I always have fun because I'm out of my \
\ mind!!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[raven1]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com> wrote:

Language isn't your first language, is it?

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Not everything comes from life. There is an enormous universe out
with an enormous span of space and time for which life as we know it
is totally irrelevant.

2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
change.

3. See (1): Over almost the complete span of space and time in the
universe, design is irrelevant. Over almost the complete span of
space and time on earth, design is irrelevant.

Creation does explain everything. Goddidit explains absolutely
everything. 'Just because' is also an explanation for absolutely
everything. Design, and in particular intelligent design, requires a
designer, and in particular an intelligent designer. The
workings-out of physics -- quantum mechanics (the "standard model")
plus general relativity -- explain incredibly accurately every process
that happens in our universe over the entire span excepting a tiny
instant after the initial inflation event ("big bang"). Can you
produce any evidence that an intelligent designer has played a role in
any process since then? I will accept a religious explanation that
"God did the "big bang in such a way so that the workings out of the
laws of physics since then produced our universe and all that is in
it". I will not accept a religious explanation for any action of an
intelligent designer on the physical universe since that time unless
you present good hard evidence for it. And arguing "here is something
we don't now yet understand" doesn't do it.

[chris thompson]

On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life

Like lava?

> 2 humans get more humans

Do you mean "beget" more humans?

> 3 there is design in everything.

It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
who see no design.

>
> Creation is supported by all three.

Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?

> But the scientists are against all three.

Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
You know, cell theory and all that...

> So who really is following the science?

Scientists, and people who understand science.

> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.

Yeah, so what?

>
> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

As someone wrote long ago, the evidence you are looking for is hidden
in books.

> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

Word salad. State your case.

Chris

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Can you break this with scientific evidence?

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:08:38 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"

language changes all the time, For example the word 'evolution' now can mean ID. A computer programmer can say my program 'evolved' over that last five years. So does 'evolution' mean ID?

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"

> wrote:
>
> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >
> >The Theory of Everything
> >
> >Here are 3 facts:
> >1 everything comes from life
> >2 humans get more humans
> >3 there is design in everything.
> >
> >Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
> >So who really is following the science?
> >These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
> >
> >I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
> >I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
>
> 1. Not everything comes from life. There is an enormous universe out
> with an enormous span of space and time for which life as we know it
> is totally irrelevant.

That is an assumption based on a hypothesis. That is not scientific. For example because many scientists believe in 'evolution' that also means the universe and life had to have happened on it's own with out ID. But the scientists do not know how life came about and they do not know what started the expansion of the universe. So It is no that they don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know. And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.

>
> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
> change.

Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans. That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.That is why there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not become something else, over time. So if you go by the scientific evidence, #2 is correct.

>
> 3. See (1): Over almost the complete span of space and time in the
> universe, design is irrelevant. Over almost the complete span of
> space and time on earth, design is irrelevant.

Why so? The scientists like to throw billions of years around as though anything could happen. That is not scientific. A lot of nothing could happen also. So instead of saying God did it, they say a billions years did it.

>
> Creation does explain everything. Goddidit explains absolutely
> everything. 'Just because' is also an explanation for absolutely
> everything. Design, and in particular intelligent design, requires a
> designer, and in particular an intelligent designer. The
> workings-out of physics -- quantum mechanics (the "standard model")
> plus general relativity -- explain incredibly accurately every process
> that happens in our universe over the entire span excepting a tiny
> instant after the initial inflation event ("big bang"). Can you
> produce any evidence that an intelligent designer has played a role in
> any process since then? I will accept a religious explanation that
> "God did the "big bang in such a way so that the workings out of the
> laws of physics since then produced our universe and all that is in
> it". I will not accept a religious explanation for any action of an
> intelligent designer on the physical universe since that time unless
> you present good hard evidence for it. And arguing "here is something
> we don't now yet understand" doesn't do it.

I am using science, but I also use the creation accounts, and compare it to the known science.
Because Creation and science are the same thing.

[Robert Camp]

We're all serious about this, that's why we're here.

If you really want to discuss your perspective, a good place to begin
would be to explain the logic behind your claim that, "there is design
in everything." I encourage you to lay out the specific criteria you
use for recognizing "design."

RLC

[Richard Norman]

You ask for evidence and science. Now produce some evidence and
science for your argument. I already said: arguing "here is something

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:13:32 AM UTC-7, chris thompson wrote:

> On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >
> > The Theory of Everything
> >
> > Here are 3 facts:
> > 1 everything comes from life
>
> Like lava?
>
> > 2 humans get more humans
>
> Do you mean "beget" more humans?
>
> > 3 there is design in everything.
>
> It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
> who see no design.
>
> >
> > Creation is supported by all three.
>
> Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?

In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.

>
> > But the scientists are against all three.
>
> Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
> You know, cell theory and all that...

Yes OK

>
> > So who really is following the science?
>
> Scientists, and people who understand science.
>
> > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> Yeah, so what?

It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation. If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:23 AM UTC-7, Kleuskes &amp; Moos wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>
> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >
> > The Theory of Everything
>
> That usually denotes a Grand Unified Theory and announcing one in this way may
> be construed as somewhat pompous.
>
> > Here are 3 facts:
> > 1 everything comes from life
>
> Last time I checked loads of stuff did not come from life. Daylight, for one.

That is an assumption based on the hypothesis that there is no creator. The science backs up creation.

There is no conflict with the universe being created and the known science. The scientists say that energy can be converted into matter. The bible say God is abundant in power (energy). The scientists say that at some point this energy changed into matter ( expansion of matter). The bible says God did this. Also the scientists say they do not know of anything before energy, and that you don't get something from nothing, so the science known says that energy always had to be there. The bible says God was always there and was never created.As
So the creation and the science say the same thing. So it is not against the science to say God created the daylight.
All I am saying at this point is that this proves a God but it is not against the known science.
Then you have to ask, how did these bible writers know this would consistent with the science known today?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com>:

>As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
>The Theory of Everything
>
>Here are 3 facts:
>1 everything comes from life
>2 humans get more humans
>3 there is design in everything.

Too bad that only #2 is demonstrably correct; the others are
demonstrably false (or at best unsupported by evidence).
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Slow Vehicle]

Mr. Dunsapy:

When you say tings like this:

> I am using science, but I also use the creation accounts, and compare it to the known science.
> Because Creation and science are the same thing.

You demonstrate that we are not using language in the same way.
There is not such thing as "Creationist Science"...nor can there be.

You chide people for basing things on assumptions, then you assume an
omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator.
Pull first the beam from your own eye...

[Kermit]

On Apr 16, 9:48 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life

No. In fact, most things do not come from life. Although life can come
from non-life (e.g. eat food, have babies).

> 2 humans get more humans

Yes, humans get humans when they give birth. They do not, sadly,
usually get humans in the post. IF coughed upon, they may get a cold.
When they go to Ikea, they may get futons.

I will take a wild guess and assume you mean the first. This is an
example of a general rule, upon which modern biology depends. Do you
agree that children are very much like, but not exactly like, their
parents? Evolution is the cumulative change in a population over time,
and the difference from one generation to the next is no greater than
you see in you and your own parents.

So as far as this goes, you agree with modern biology.

> 3 there is design in everything.

Really? I haven't seen any evidence for it. Perhaps you could describe
how it can be recognized.

>
> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.

No.
The first is silly, and while scientists can get playful, this is too
silly for them, I should think.
The second is a trivial and true observation (if my stab in the dark
interpretation is correct).
The third is not incompatible with science, but until you offer
something that can be observed, confirmed, and measured in some way
you have nothing for science to work with.

> So who really is following the science?

Scientists and science literate people. Now you, or you would know
that your theory of everything is not a theory.

> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.

Yes. And comets still do not come from life.

>
> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

But you make three claims, one contrary to facts, one so garbled as to
be unintelligible, and one completely unsupported by facts.

> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

They take a (very, very large) body of related evidence (verifiable
observations), and have offered a model that explains those
observations (it makes prediction which have, so far, come true).

They are also willing (if not necessarily eager) to give up cherished
notions if the evidence requires it. Do you have the courage and
humility to do science? We shall see.

Kermit

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:06:46 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
>
>

> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >
> >The Theory of Everything
> >
> >Here are 3 facts:
> >1 everything comes from life
> >2 humans get more humans
> >3 there is design in everything.
>
> Too bad that only #2 is demonstrably correct; the others are
> demonstrably false (or at best unsupported by evidence).

If you take number 2 as correct that means 1 and 3 are also correct.
You actually have to go against the evidence of number 2, to say 'evolution' or abiogenesis is correct.

[Kermit]

On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:23 AM UTC-7, Kleuskes &amp; Moos wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>
> > > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > > The Theory of Everything
>
> > That usually denotes a Grand Unified Theory and announcing one in this way may
> > be construed as somewhat pompous.
>
> > > Here are 3 facts:
> > > 1 everything comes from life
>
> > Last time I checked loads of stuff did not come from life. Daylight, for one.
>
> That is an assumption based on the hypothesis that there is no creator.

No, it is based on the observation that there is no creator in sight.
Many scientists are theists, and would happily display the evidence
for this were it true. *You do not see any; you *deduce this from your
premisses that (everything is a creation of God, and God is life,
therefore..."

The logic is correct as such. But you have not established the first
premiss (the second is silly semantics, but ...whatever).

Please establish, with evidence, that there is a creator.

> The science backs up creation.

In over ten years on this news group I have seen no verifiable
evidence for it. The only reasons I have seen to convince some people
are emotional and cultural (and maybe aesthetic or philosophical).

>
> There is no conflict with the universe being created and the known science.

There is no conflict between what we know scientifically, and this all
being the dream of Brahma, or a virtual reality in a computer. I have
seen no evidence to believe any of those, either.

But Yahweh's Legoland, Neo's Matrix, or Brahma's dream, the evidence
is that the species populating the Earth today got here by evolution,
from a common ancestor. Establishing the existence of any of these is
not a problem for science.

> The scientists say that energy can be converted into matter.

Yes.

> The bible say God is abundant in power (energy). The scientists say that at some point this energy changed into matter ( expansion of matter). The bible says God did this.

Why do you keep bringing up the Bible - why not the Bhagavad Gita, or
the Egyptian Book of the Dead?

> Also the scientists say they do not know of anything before energy, and that you don't get something from nothing,

It's not clear this is true. Certainly no observations from within the
universe would apply to the universe as a whole.

> so the science known says that energy always had to be there.

No, we don't know enough to say this yet with a high degree of
confidence.

> The bible says God was always there and was never created.As

Yes, so? Other religions do not. You have not established that the
Bible is a source of information.

> So the creation and the science say the same thing.

No.
"compatible with" != "same as"

>  So it is not against the science to say God created the daylight.

Nor is it against the science to say that this is all Brahma's dream.
So?

> All I am saying at this point is that this proves a God

No, it was merely an opportunity for you to assert that there is a
creator god, numerous times. You have offered no evidence, nor any
reason to think that if it were true, it would conflict with
biological observations so far.

> but it is not against the known science.
> Then you have to ask, how did these bible writers know this would consistent with the science known today?

Of course, if one were to take the stories in Genesis  literally, then
it would conflict a great deal with science. If one did not, then you
have a book making an unsupported claim that something intelligent
made all of this. Please offer actual evidence for this, and please
explain why this should concern those of us interested in human
origins.

<snip>

Kermit

[Kermit]

Yes, language changes constantly. However, experts in various fields
have technical terms for what they deal with. In biology, evolution
means something specific: "The change in alleles in a breeding
population over time." And this is of course accompanied by several
related theories that (so far) explain it quite well.

Kermit

[wiki trix]

already broke

[Kermit]

Umm... You have not yet established that your particular
interpretation of your particular myth is correct. Please offer some
data that can be verified. (Helpful hint: repeating assertions is not
offering data.)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>
> > As someone wrote long ago, the evidence you are looking for is hidden
> > in books.
>
> > > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
> > Word salad. State your case.
>
> > Chris

Kermit

[Mr.Dunsapy]

I know this is deceptively simple, but it was intended to be. In a few words it explains everything. But of course you have go into the details.

> The second is a trivial and true observation (if my stab in the dark
> interpretation is correct).

How possible could it be trivial? It means that if all you have is humans that is all you will ever have. That goes for all of life as well. That is why there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. There 120 species of Finches but none turn into Pigeons over time.

> The third is not incompatible with science, but until you offer
> something that can be observed, confirmed, and measured in some way
> you have nothing for science to work with.

That is a failing of the scientists.
They have no method of detecting ID, and they say they don't have to.
Here is an example.
I give you a loaf of bread. The scientists with their methods of research, would hypothesis how a loaf of bread could just happen.But of course could not prove it. Their taking the materials into a lab only shows creation.

>
> > So who really is following the science?
>
> Scientists and science literate people. Now you, or you would know
> that your theory of everything is not a theory.

Schooling is one way to ge people to think the same thing.

>
> > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> Yes. And comets still do not come from life.
>
> >
> > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>
> But you make three claims, one contrary to facts, one so garbled as to
> be unintelligible, and one completely unsupported by facts.

Yet with evidence you can't break them.

>
> > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
> They take a (very, very large) body of related evidence (verifiable
> observations), and have offered a model that explains those
> observations (it makes prediction which have, so far, come true).
>
> They are also willing (if not necessarily eager) to give up cherished
> notions if the evidence requires it. Do you have the courage and
> humility to do science? We shall see.

This is not correct, their hypothesis is more important to them and has to be supported, no matter what the evidence says. For example DNA and its code. They don't expect a computer code to just type itself, so why would you expect a code that builds humans and also programs for survival and continuing with more humans, to just happen? Plus the evidence that a human will have more humans.
Where is the rational?



>
> Kermit

[perr...@gmail.com]

God is a supreme entity that radiates light that in turns brings forth life and matter

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/16/12 10:48 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life

Except non living things... Even life itself came from non life.

> 2 humans get more humans

I suppose that depends on the human... Humans may produce more humans,
but each human is slightly different. With enough generations, and
selectional pressures, a population may become something other than
human..

> 3 there is design in everything.

There is the *appearance* of design in many things. Appearance of
design /= actual design. This is something many people can't quite
grasp.

>
> Creation is supported by all three.

Maybe, but since Creationism can't be falsified, anything could
potentially support it.

> But the scientists are against all three.

Not all scientists are 'against' all three, but the vast majority of
scientist recognize the three points above to be overly simplistic, and
aren't the "facts" you seem to think they are.

> So who really is following the science?

The scientists, of course.

> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.

As pointed out already, the above are not facts, but assertions.
Assertions may contain facts, but aren't facts themselves.

>
> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

What evidence would you like? Evidence that not everything comes from
life? Ok, sand comes from erosion of larger rocks. Life isn't
required for sand to come from rocks. Therefore, not everything come
from life.

Evidence that humans don't always get more humans? The fact that many
people die childless should be enough evidence for that....

Evidence that there is not design in everything? Ok, how about a
random assortment of molecules, such as the atmosphere. Where is the
design in that?

> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

Scientists use the scientific method, which assumes only that the
evidence means something. What interpretations and assumptions do you
imagine science uses?


DJT


>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/16/12 11:33 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Norman wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>>
>>> The Theory of Everything
>>>
>>> Here are 3 facts:
>>> 1 everything comes from life
>>> 2 humans get more humans
>>> 3 there is design in everything.
>>>
>>> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
>>> So who really is following the science?
>>> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>>>
>>> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>>> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>>
>>
>> 1. Not everything comes from life. There is an enormous universe out
>> with an enormous span of space and time for which life as we know it
>> is totally irrelevant.
>
> That is an assumption based on a hypothesis.

No, that's a finding. No one is assuming that a supernatural being
can't possibly exist. If one chooses to believe there is such a being,
the evidence doesn't support or refute.

> That is not scientific. For example because many scientists believe in 'evolution' that also means the universe and life had to have happened on it's own with out ID.

Scientists don't "believe in" evolution the way one might believe in
God. Evolution is a scientific theory that accepted due to the
overwhelming amount of evidence. How the universe began, or how life
started are separate questions. Again, no one is leaving out God
simply because they don't want to believe in God. Appealing to a
supernatural being as an explanation is just inherently unscientific.

> But the scientists do not know how life came about and they do not know what started the expansion of the universe.

Which is not reason to stop looking, and say "Goddidit".

> So It is no that they don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know.

That doesn't follow.

> And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.

Again, it's not that scientists are deliberately rejecting the
possibility that God exists. Science just cannot work if one assumes
that a supernatural being can alter the conditions. Therefore one must
exclude supernatural influences as untestable.

>
>>
>> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
>> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
>> change.
> Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans.

No, the evidence that exists indicates that humans came from previous
populations of hominids, and that in the future, if our species hasn't
become extinct, new species of humans will

> That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.

There are many "almost human" fossil species. Homo neanderthalensis, H.
florenesis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. rudolphensis, etc, etc..



As for "ex humans", I don't see how that would be even possible.
Remember, individuals don't evolve, populations do. A new species of
human would still be human.

> That is why there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not become something else, over time.

That's merely a matter of semantics. If one chooses to define one of
those finch species as "something other than a finch", they will have
become something else.

Humans, for example, are the end result of nearly 4 billion years of
evolution, but we are still eukaryotes, still vertebrates, still
gnathostomes, still mammals, still primates, still apes, and still
hominids. None of that changes no matter how much our descendants
evolve.

> So if you go by the scientific evidence, #2 is correct.

What scientific evidence do you mean?

>
>>
>> 3. See (1): Over almost the complete span of space and time in the
>> universe, design is irrelevant. Over almost the complete span of
>> space and time on earth, design is irrelevant.
> Why so? The scientists like to throw billions of years around as though anything could happen. That is not scientific. A lot of nothing could happen also. So instead of saying God did it, they say a billions years did it.
>
>>
>> Creation does explain everything. Goddidit explains absolutely
>> everything. 'Just because' is also an explanation for absolutely
>> everything. Design, and in particular intelligent design, requires a
>> designer, and in particular an intelligent designer. The
>> workings-out of physics -- quantum mechanics (the "standard model")
>> plus general relativity -- explain incredibly accurately every process
>> that happens in our universe over the entire span excepting a tiny
>> instant after the initial inflation event ("big bang"). Can you
>> produce any evidence that an intelligent designer has played a role in
>> any process since then? I will accept a religious explanation that
>> "God did the "big bang in such a way so that the workings out of the
>> laws of physics since then produced our universe and all that is in
>> it". I will not accept a religious explanation for any action of an
>> intelligent designer on the physical universe since that time unless
>> you present good hard evidence for it. And arguing "here is something
>> we don't now yet understand" doesn't do it.
>
> I am using science, but I also use the creation accounts, and compare it to the known science.

That's not how science works. Science is about finding out where the
evidence leads, not shoehorning evidence into a preconceived belief.

> Because Creation and science are the same thing.

No, they are not. Creation is a religious belief. Science is a means of
investigating nature.

DJT

[Robert Camp]

No way, really!? Me too!! He should join our club, we've got jackets
and a cool logo.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

On Apr 16, 10:57 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation. If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.

Completely false, like most of what you say.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/16/12 11:57 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:13:32 AM UTC-7, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
>>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>>
>>> The Theory of Everything
>>>
>>> Here are 3 facts:
>>> 1 everything comes from life
>>
>> Like lava?
>>
>>> 2 humans get more humans
>>
>> Do you mean "beget" more humans?
>>
>>> 3 there is design in everything.
>>
>> It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
>> who see no design.
>>
>>>
>>> Creation is supported by all three.
>>
>> Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?
> In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.

No, you claimed that it supports God. Actually, it simply doesn't
refute a belief in God.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> But the scientists are against all three.
>>
>> Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
>> You know, cell theory and all that...
> Yes OK
>>
>>> So who really is following the science?
>>
>> Scientists, and people who understand science.
>>
>>> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>>
>> Yeah, so what?
>
> It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation. If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.

Ow! The above is so wrong it's painful...

First of all, evolution does not depend on the origin of life being
"non creation". How life began has absolutely no bearing at all on
evolution. Evolution is what happened to life after it began.

Second, science doesn't "prove" anything. It provides testable
explanations for natural phenomena.

Third, that life evolved is a fact, as much as anything can be called
a fact. The theory of evolution describes how this fact happened.

Fourth, a scientific theory does not become a "myth" if it can't be
"proven" A myth is a instructional story, that may, or may not contain
elements of truth.

DJT

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:50:42 AM UTC-7, Kermit wrote:

> On Apr 16, 9:48 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >
> > The Theory of Everything
> >
> > Here are 3 facts:
> > 1 everything comes from life
>
> No. In fact, most things do not come from life. Although life can come
> from non-life (e.g. eat food, have babies).

You mean by creation,because babies come from life.

>
> > 2 humans get more humans
>
> Yes, humans get humans when they give birth. They do not, sadly,
> usually get humans in the post. IF coughed upon, they may get a cold.
> When they go to Ikea, they may get futons.

It means that there is no monkey business. The evidence says a human comes from humans. There are a variety in humans,as in other life, but they are still the same kind. It means that 'evolution' is impossible.

>
> I will take a wild guess and assume you mean the first. This is an
> example of a general rule, upon which modern biology depends. Do you
> agree that children are very much like, but not exactly like, their
> parents? Evolution is the cumulative change in a population over time,
> and the difference from one generation to the next is no greater than
> you see in you and your own parents.
>
> So as far as this goes, you agree with modern biology.

There is adaption, natural selection ,breeding and mutations, but none or accumulatively do they become something else. A human is always a human, just as Fiches are still Finches even though there are 120 species of Finches. And there are no almost humans or any ex-humans.

>
>
> > 3 there is design in everything.
>
> Really? I haven't seen any evidence for it. Perhaps you could describe
> how it can be recognized.

If I ask you to build a robot like a human, would you design it and build it? Or would you just throw the materials in corner, hope that it builds itself?
So the robot you build is designed but the humans you are trying to copy isn't? Where is the rational in that?

>
> >
> > Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
>
> No.
> The first is silly, and while scientists can get playful, this is too
> silly for them, I should think.
> The second is a trivial and true observation (if my stab in the dark
> interpretation is correct).
> The third is not incompatible with science, but until you offer
> something that can be observed, confirmed, and measured in some way
> you have nothing for science to work with.

Can you measure the work that goes into creating a loaf of bread?

>
> > So who really is following the science?
>
> Scientists and science literate people. Now you, or you would know
> that your theory of everything is not a theory.

I never said they were not smart people. It is more like they have blinded themselves.

>
> > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> Yes. And comets still do not come from life.

I already went over how science supports the change in energy to matter.

>
> >
> > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>
> But you make three claims, one contrary to facts, one so garbled as to
> be unintelligible, and one completely unsupported by facts.
>
> > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
> They take a (very, very large) body of related evidence (verifiable
> observations), and have offered a model that explains those
> observations (it makes prediction which have, so far, come true).

It doesn't matter about this, if you go into it, with the idea that there is no other possibility. Your going to get out what you put in.

>
> They are also willing (if not necessarily eager) to give up cherished
> notions if the evidence requires it. Do you have the courage and
> humility to do science? We shall see.

Yes we will see.


>
> Kermit

[Kermit]

Actually, it explains nothing. Contrary examples come to all of us.
You later clarified (minimally) by saying that you believed a creator
is responsible for everything, and that creator is alive, so
everything comes from life. Well, if you want to redefine the word
"life" and you established beyond reasonable doubt that there is a
creator.

Any evidence for this?

> But of course you have go into the details.

The Devil *is in the details, yes?
;)

Really, understanding reality requires being willing to look at the

details.

>
> > The second is a trivial and true observation (if my stab in the dark
> > interpretation is correct).
>
> How possible could it be trivial?

In science, "trivial observation" means that it was obvious, or that
everybody already knows this. Trivial observations are sometimes
appropriately brought up to illustrate a line of reasoning or chain of
evidence, but normally they don't contribute to our understanding.

>It means that if all you have is humans that is all you will ever have. That goes for all of life as well. That is why there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. There 120 species of Finches but none turn into  Pigeons over time.

Well, no it doesn't mean that. It turns out that the evidence
indicates that species change profoundly over time, often splitting
into two or more that continue to change, or sometimes simply stop.
Evolutionary theory was developed to *explain these observations, not
to propose them. And species usually change very slowly by human
standards.

This mountain behind me <gestures> is much the same as yesterday, and
that the same as the day before. But that doesn't mean that it isn't
eroding, and possibly growing at the same time. It is simply that
those changes are slow, and cumulative.

>
> > The third is not incompatible with science, but until you offer
> > something that can be observed, confirmed, and measured in some way
> > you have nothing for science to work with.
>
> That is a failing of the scientists.

Ah. The scientific community awaits with bated breath. Please offer
the verifiable evidence that would so profoundly change everything.

> They have no method of detecting ID, and they say they don't have to.

Not, they say there is no apparent way to detect ID.

> Here is an example.
> I give you a loaf of bread. The scientists with their methods of research, would hypothesis how a loaf of bread could just happen.But of course could not prove it. Their taking the materials  into a lab only shows creation.

Since most scientists are familiar with bread, at least in passing, it
wouldn't be difficult for them to figure it out without complicated
tests (which would only detect ingredients, consistent with the
"bread" hypothesis). But suppose a space probe came back with an
unfamiliar glob of unknown stuff? What would the scientists look for
to detect intent or design?

Here is another example: you look at a cloud. You see a face in it,
and point it out to me. I see the face too, once you describe it to
me. But there is no actual face there. human have a propensity for
seeing faces and intent when there are none (there's probably an
evolutionary explanation for that...). If you saw a face but I did
not, what should I make of your claim that not only do you see a face
there, but that means it is self evidence that there is an actual face
there, not simply some superficial similarities to one.

Look up "pareidolia".

>
>
>
> > > So who really is following the science?
>
> > Scientists and science literate people. Now you, or you would know
> > that your theory of everything is not a theory.
>
> Schooling is one way to ge people to think the same thing.

Cultures with no school may have folks that are smart, but they are
usually very conformist.

Colleges and universities especially have a diversity of thought that
is not found in most of the rest of the prevailing culture.

>
>
>
> > > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> > Yes. And comets still do not come from life.
>
> > > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>
> > But you make three claims, one contrary to facts, one so garbled as to
> > be unintelligible, and one completely unsupported by facts.
>
> Yet with evidence you can't break them.

1. Comets.
2. So what?
3. Not yet established.

>
>

>
> > > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
> > They take a (very, very large) body of related evidence (verifiable
> > observations), and have offered a model that explains those
> > observations (it makes prediction which have, so far, come true).
>
> > They are also willing (if not necessarily eager) to give up cherished
> > notions if the evidence requires it. Do you have the courage and
> > humility to do science? We shall see.
>
> This is not correct, their hypothesis is more important to them and has to be supported, no matter what the evidence says.

Please offer verifiable evidence that seriously conflicts with any
established theory.

> For example DNA and its code. They don't expect a computer code to just type itself, so why would you expect a code that builds humans and also programs for survival and continuing with more humans, to just happen?

We don't expect it to just happen. The "just happening" part are the
inheritable differences in every generation, the mutations and
recombinations of alleles. The selection is by the environment. Cold
weather selects for some traits in a population, hot weather selects
for others.

When we call it code, we are using a *metaphor*. DNA is comprised of
molecules. These molecules do chemical stuff. It has never been seen
doing anything contrary to known science.

>Plus the evidence that a human will have more humans.

Yes. The difference you see between any child and her parents is no
less than the difference you see between generations in any species
that is adapting to new conditions.

> Where is the rational?

Where is your evidence?

I wanted to type "Where is your empirical?" but I couldn't bring
myself to do it. Sigh.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kermit
Still Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 16, 12:47 pm, perry6...@gmail.com wrote:

No, we are all subroutines in a virtual environment game running on a
computer. God is a young man named Norbert, who eats too many corn
chips and can't get a date, but he can create (or destroy) galaxies
with the push of a button. True, I have no more evidence for this
than you do, but I have the advantage in not requiring magic or
technology much more advanced than we have now.

Kermit

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/16/12 1:33 PM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
snipping stuff already answered

>>
>> They are also willing (if not necessarily eager) to give up cherished
>> notions if the evidence requires it. Do you have the courage and
>> humility to do science? We shall see.
>
> This is not correct, their hypothesis is more important to them and has to be supported, no matter what the evidence says.

Whoa there, sonny... where do you get this idea? Do you realize you
are insulting hundreds of thousands of working scientists, all over the
world with this assertion?

> For example DNA and its code. They don't expect a computer code to just type itself, so why would you expect a code that builds humans and also programs for survival and continuing with more humans, to just happen?

That's your own mistake. No one claims that DNA "just happened". DNA
came about by a long process of chemical, and physical development, most
likely over millions of years of trial and error.

> Plus the evidence that a human will have more humans.

You are mistaking evidence for what has happened, for what will happen.
What is a "human" is a matter of semantics, not something set in
stone. All descendants of humans will remain "human" as long as that's
what one chooses to call them. It's possible in the future,
descendants of humans will become something so different, to be
unrecognizable to modern humans. Those creatures will still be
descendants of humans...

Modern day Humans are the descendants of lobe finned fishes, and
cladistically we remain fish, just highly derived fish that have adapted
to live on land.



> Where is the rational?

Certainly not in your claims....


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/16/12 9:48 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:

No, they are not.

> 1 everything comes from life

Hawking radiation does not come from life.

> 2 humans get more humans

The HeLa cell culture is not human but got by a human.

> 3 there is design in everything.

There is no design in the dirt on my kitchen window or in your Theory of
Everything.

> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are
> against all three.

Because all three are wrong.

> So who really is following the science?

Not you, obviously. And that's your whole point, isn't it?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[727]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:

> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."

> The Theory of Everything

> Here are 3 facts:

> 1 everything comes from life

The Sun comes from life? Give compelling evidence of how the Sun
comes from life or that's not a fact and your postulations are pointless.

> 2 humans get more humans

Humans get constipation too, what are you on about?

> 3 there is design in everything.

The Moon is designed? Give compelling evidence of that the Moon is
designed or that's not a fact and your postulations are pointless.

> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all
> three.

Nothing is supported by any of this gibberish.

========
dccxxvii
========

[wiki trix]

Close, but god is just another subroutine like the rest of us. Check
out: pancomputationalism.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/16/12 10:57 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> [...]

> In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.

Actually, you did the opposite.

Your knee-jerk rejection of evolution tells us that you reject a god
that does not behave as you expect him to. And any god that is
subordinate to your opinions is not a god.

Besides, you require that God be the proximate, deliberate cause of many
evils in the world. (That's what design means.) Your acceptance of
that god is reason enough to reject god.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Actually life popping out of the ground is magic. But we understand what creation can do, because we do it ourselves. You can take raw materials and send man to the moon. etc. The idea of creation is not foreign to us as humans. Also the tremendous difference, between man and animals, is an obvious evidence for creation. We do things that have nothing to do with survival.
We ask question where did we come from what is the future,and man does not want to die. We think that is a waste. Some will even freeze themselves in hopes of coming back to life. None of this has anything to do with 'evolution' or magic, it has to do with creation.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:47:06 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:

> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:23 AM UTC-7, Kleuskes &amp; Moos wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>>
>> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> > The Theory of Everything
>>
>> That usually denotes a Grand Unified Theory and announcing one in this
>> way may be construed as somewhat pompous.
>>
>> > Here are 3 facts:
>> > 1 everything comes from life
>>
>> Last time I checked loads of stuff did not come from life. Daylight,
>> for one.
> That is an assumption based on the hypothesis that there is no creator.
> The science backs up creation.

That's based on the assumption you do not include the sun in the collection
of living things. A fair assumption i might add.

Besides, if your "Theory of Everything" requires a creator, the burden of
proof for showing one actually exists rests firmly on your shoulder.

> There is no conflict with the universe being created and the known
> science.

Last time i checked, there were plenty of conflicts. The main one being
various creation myths not checking out.

> The scientists say that energy can be converted into matter.

In fact, and if i understand correctly, Einstein said tey are two forms of
the same thing. E=MC^2, or somesuch.

> The bible say God is abundant in power (energy).

That's news... Where does it say that?

> The scientists say that
> at some point this energy changed into matter ( expansion of matter).

That's news, too. Who said that and when? Cite please...

> The bible says God did this.

I repeat my question. Where does it say that?

> Also the scientists say they do not know of
> anything before energy, and that you don't get something from nothing,
> so the science known says that energy always had to be there.

Methinks scientists would balk at that. Frankly, you're claiming quite a lot
that sounds utterly dubious to me. And I'm not even an atheist.

> The bible says God was always there and was never created.

Read it again. It does not say that. It's been inferred, OK, but the bible
never says so.

> As So the creation and the science say the same thing.

So you claim. One question: how old is the Earth? The Universe?

> So it is not against the science to say God created the daylight.

That still does not make it a living creature. Even if i were to
accept your wild claims, it does not jive with your earlier claims.

> All I am saying at this point is that this
> proves a God but it is not against the known science.

Smarter people have tried to prove the existence of God. All failed for
various reasons.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

> Then you have to
> ask, how did these bible writers know this would consistent with the
> science known today?

They did not and the bible is _not_ consistent with science today. Not
even close. So far, your "Theory of Everything" does not amount to much.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________
< World War III? No thanks! >

[Ernest Major]

In message
<20178297.0.1334596842596.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcgs4>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

>On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:08:38 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> wrote:
>>
>> Language isn't your first language, is it?
>>

>> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> >The Theory of Everything
>> >

>> >Here are 3 facts:
>> >1 everything comes from life

>> >2 humans get more humans
>> >3 there is design in everything.
>> >
>> >Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against
>> >all three.
>> >So who really is following the science?
>> >These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
>> >understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to
>> >the ground.
>> >
>> >I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>> >I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions

>> >the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>

>language changes all the time, For example the word 'evolution' now can
>mean ID.

Not in normal usage.

> A computer programmer can say my program 'evolved' over that last five
>years. So does 'evolution' mean ID?
>

No. That would be a fallacy of equivocation. (Two different senses of
evolved are involved here, and both (intelligent) design by humans and
Intelligent Design.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<23659748.308.1334594933941.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvh6>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

>As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
>The Theory of Everything
>
>Here are 3 facts:
>1 everything comes from life

That appears to be obviously false. Do you claim that electrons, stars,
volcanoes, iron ore, ozone, etc., come from life? And if so, how do you
justify that claim?

>2 humans get more humans

Helacyton gartleri?

The more general point is that not all relations are transitive.

>3 there is design in everything.

Do you claim that there is design in electrons, stars, volcanoes, iron
ore, ozone, smallpox, maleria, guinea worms, etc. And if so, how do you
justify that claim?

>
>Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
>So who really is following the science?
>These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
>understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the
>ground.
>
>I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

>I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of

>the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<18066770.740.1334597601630.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcuv5>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

>On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Norman wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
>> wrote:
>>

>> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> >The Theory of Everything
>> >
>> >Here are 3 facts:
>> >1 everything comes from life

>> >2 humans get more humans

>> >3 there is design in everything.
>> >

>> >Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against
>> >all three.
>> >So who really is following the science?
>> >These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
>> >understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to
>> >the ground.
>> >
>> >I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>> >I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions

>> >the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>>
>>

>> 1. Not everything comes from life. There is an enormous universe out
>> with an enormous span of space and time for which life as we know it
>> is totally irrelevant.
>

>That is an assumption based on a hypothesis. That is not scientific.

>For example because many scientists believe in 'evolution' that also
>means the universe and life had to have happened on it's own with out

>ID. But the scientists do not know how life came about and they do not
>know what started the expansion of the universe. So It is no that they

>don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know.

>And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.
>

It appears that you might be making a First Cause assertion. (I see no
attempt to actually make an argument.) It also appears that you are
claiming that being created by God is the same as coming from life. But
by the standard understanding of life, God is not living.

>>
>> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
>> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
>> change.
>Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans.

>That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.That is why

>there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not

>become something else, over time. So if you go by the scientific
>evidence, #2 is correct.

There is voluminous evidence for the factuality with common descent with
modification by natural selection and other processes; to exclude it
requires taking an epistemological position on what qualifies as
evidence with firstly is not the same as what is considered scientific
evidence, and secondly would cripple science if science was restricted
to the former.

>Because Creation and science are the same thing.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<23030128.284.1334599078716.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbaf6>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:13:32 AM UTC-7, chris thompson wrote:

>> On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
>> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> > The Theory of Everything
>> >
>> > Here are 3 facts:
>> > 1 everything comes from life
>>

>> Like lava?

>>
>> > 2 humans get more humans
>>

>> Do you mean "beget" more humans?
>>

>> > 3 there is design in everything.
>>

>> It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
>> who see no design.
>>
>> >

>> > Creation is supported by all three.
>>

>> Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?

>In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.

Citation please.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> > But the scientists are against all three.
>>

>> Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
>> You know, cell theory and all that...
>Yes OK
>>

>> > So who really is following the science?
>>

>> Scientists, and people who understand science.
>>

>> > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
>> >understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to
>> >the ground.
>>

>> Yeah, so what?
>
>It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is not
>a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation.
>If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.

That is an error. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the
diversity and disparity of life, not its origin. It doesn't matter
whether life on earth originated by spontaneous abiogenesis,
supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, local panspermia, global
panspermia, accidental panspermia, directed panspermia, or some other
alternative that has escaped my recollection; the evidence that the
diversity and disparity were achieved by evolutionary processes is still
valid.

>>
>> >
>> > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>>

>> As someone wrote long ago, the evidence you are looking for is hidden
>> in books.
>>

>> > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions

>> >of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>>
>> Word salad. State your case.
>>
>> Chris
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[wiki trix]

On Apr 16, 5:34 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <23659748.308.1334594933941.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvh6>,

> Mr.Dunsapy <duns...@gmail.com> writes

>
> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> >The Theory of Everything
>
> >Here are 3 facts:
> >1 everything comes from life
>
> That appears to be obviously false. Do you claim that electrons, stars,
> volcanoes, iron ore, ozone, etc., come from life? And if so, how do you
> justify that claim?
>
> >2 humans get more humans
>
> Helacyton gartleri?
>
> The more general point is that not all relations are transitive.

One HeLa cell get more HeLa cells, I guess. It is very hard to sort
out what the point of this thread is. I give up...

[Ernest Major]

In message
<17933717.2018.1334604795458.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbtr10>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

One of the problems with the argument from first cause is that it
doesn't actually explain anything. You appear to have added a layer of
confusion with the claim that "everything comes from life", which
incorrectly conflates Gods and organisms.

>
>
>> The second is a trivial and true observation (if my stab in the dark
>> interpretation is correct).
>
>How possible could it be trivial? It means that if all you have is
>humans that is all you will ever have. That goes for all of life as
>well. That is why there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. There
>120 species of Finches but none turn into Pigeons over time.

Did you know that speciation has been repeatedly observed in the wild,
under domestication and in the laboratory? It is almost routine in
agronomy.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 16, 11:55 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:06:46 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"

>
> > >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > >The Theory of Everything
>
> > >Here are 3 facts:
> > >1 everything comes from life

> > >2 humans get more humans

> > >3 there is design in everything.
>

> > Too bad that only #2 is demonstrably correct; the others are
> > demonstrably false (or at best unsupported by evidence).
>
> If you take number 2 as correct that means 1 and 3 are also correct.
> You actually have to go against the evidence of number 2, to say 'evolution' or abiogenesis is correct.

No, you don't. You just have to understand context.

The observation that humans "get" (beget) humans does not invalidate
the fact that humans are descended from non-humans or that human
descendants may, in some distant time, be thought of as non-human.

Your "humans get more humans" is just a simplification that ignores
classification principles, the vagaries of nomenclature, and the
consequences of deep time. It has it's legitimate uses, when not
discussing evolutionary or geologic time-scales, as does saying the
sun rises and sets when not discussing astrophysics.

What you have to understand is that while "humans get more humans" is
trivially true, in the context of the argument you're trying to make
it's useless because it assumes the very thing you're trying to argue
for (which doesn't say much for your command of logic).

Maybe if you try again, this time with more attention to detail.

RLC

[Kalkidas]

On 4/16/2012 2:34 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <23659748.308.1334594933941.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvh6>,
> Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes
>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>
>> The Theory of Everything
>>
>> Here are 3 facts:
>> 1 everything comes from life
>
> That appears to be obviously false. Do you claim that electrons, stars,
> volcanoes, iron ore, ozone, etc., come from life? And if so, how do you
> justify that claim?

If God is life, and everything comes from God, then everything comes
from life, including inorganic things.

>> 2 humans get more humans
>
> Helacyton gartleri?

Humans "get" more humans...and perhaps other things as well.

> The more general point is that not all relations are transitive.

"Helacyton gartleri" is claimed to have "evolved" from humans, but that
is really pushing it IMO. It's not that Helacyton gartleri is a
transitional form from Homo sapiens to Homo futuris.

>> 3 there is design in everything.
>
> Do you claim that there is design in electrons, stars, volcanoes, iron
> ore, ozone, smallpox, maleria, guinea worms, etc. And if so, how do you
> justify that claim?

Well that is the question, isn't it?

[snip]

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Actually they do. because they believe that 'evolution' is true, they believe that someday they will find out how life started on it own. That is faith like many religious faiths.

>
>
> > But the scientists do not know how life came about and they do not know what started the expansion of the universe.
>
> Which is not reason to stop looking, and say "Goddidit".

No one is saying because the scientists do not know God did it. It is not lack of knowledge on the scientists part. Its that they have blinded themselves to not to look for all possible causes. Just like that loaf of bread, they will never get the answer, because they have closed their minds by creating a methods of not detecting ID.

So It is no that they don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know.
>
>
> That doesn't follow.
>
>
>
> > And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.
>
> Again, it's not that scientists are deliberately rejecting the
> possibility that God exists. Science just cannot work if one assumes
> that a supernatural being can alter the conditions. Therefore one must
> exclude supernatural influences as untestable.

Yes they are. Some have been trained not to go in that direction, their methods do not detect ID,and if you want a good career don't mention the creation word.

Id is detectable
1 find life just happening some place.
2 try to create life in a lab and record all the work and knowledge , and materials that go into creating life. That is ID.
3 compare the two.

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
> >> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
> >> change.
> > Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans.
>
> No, the evidence that exists indicates that humans came from previous
> populations of hominids, and that in the future, if our species hasn't
> become extinct, new species of humans will

That is assumption, what the evidence? My evidence is that humans will have more humans as offspring. And there are no almost humans or any ex-humans.

>
>
>
>
> > That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.
>
> There are many "almost human" fossil species. Homo neanderthalensis, H.
> florenesis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. rudolphensis, etc, etc..

These are the missing links that go missing.
Homo habilis was supposed to to 'evolve into erectus are now thought to be at the same time so now they have had to change their thinking on this.
Habilis, now is a debate as to whether the fossils attributed to habilis even belong to to the same species. Some experts have split these into 2 species and making a new one Homo rudolfensis.
Then you have the problem, that the scientists, do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that.

But in the end they all go missing. Even Lucy, after 30 years now is considered nothing to do with humans.

What part of this is scientific?

>
>
>
> As for "ex humans", I don't see how that would be even possible.
> Remember, individuals don't evolve, populations do. A new species of
> human would still be human.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That is why there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not become something else, over time.
>
> That's merely a matter of semantics. If one chooses to define one of
> those finch species as "something other than a finch", they will have
> become something else.

Yes the scienitst do not know what a species is.

[Ron O]

On Apr 16, 11:48 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life
> 2 humans get more humans
> 3 there is design in everything.
>
> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
> So who really is following the science?
> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

You missed April Fools day by over 2 weeks.

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

In message <jmi5a6$t7n$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes

>On 4/16/2012 2:34 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>> <23659748.308.1334594933941.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvh6>,
>> Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes
>>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>>
>>> The Theory of Everything
>>>
>>> Here are 3 facts:
>>> 1 everything comes from life
>>
>> That appears to be obviously false. Do you claim that electrons, stars,
>> volcanoes, iron ore, ozone, etc., come from life? And if so, how do you
>> justify that claim?
>
>If God is life, and everything comes from God, then everything comes
>from life, including inorganic things.

Are you making those claims, or just guessing at how he might justify
his claim?

>
>>> 2 humans get more humans
>>
>> Helacyton gartleri?
>
>Humans "get" more humans...and perhaps other things as well.

If he made that concession he would have destroyed any semblance of an
argument in his statement.

>
>> The more general point is that not all relations are transitive.
>
>"Helacyton gartleri" is claimed to have "evolved" from humans, but that
>is really pushing it IMO. It's not that Helacyton gartleri is a
>transitional form from Homo sapiens to Homo futuris.

Nowadays only creationists are Lamarckians.

>
>>> 3 there is design in everything.
>>
>> Do you claim that there is design in electrons, stars, volcanoes, iron
>> ore, ozone, smallpox, maleria, guinea worms, etc. And if so, how do you
>> justify that claim?
>
>Well that is the question, isn't it?
>
>[snip]
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Some fools are around all year long.:) ( sorry I couldn't resist)

[Ernest Major]

In message
<10046903.2327.1334614024927.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbvs10>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

>Yes they are. Some have been trained not to go in that direction, their
>methods do not detect ID,and if you want a good career don't mention
>the creation word.
>
>Id is detectable

Perhaps. But no one has shown how,

>1 find life just happening some place.
>2 try to create life in a lab and record all the work and knowledge ,
>and materials that go into creating life. That is ID. 3 compare the
>two.

including yourself.

Your argument in insufficiently explicit, but it seems to be aiming at
the argument that if humans can create life then all life is
intelligently designed. That is not a convincing argument.

For example, as previously mentioned, speciation has been repeatedly
observed in the wild, under domestication and in the laboratory. That
intelligent agents were involved (to the extent of cross-fertilising
plants) in the recreation of Galeopsis tetrahit from its parent species,
does not mean that Galeopsis tetrahit was originally created by
intelligent agents; interspecific hybridisation and non-reduction of
gametes are both processes which occur in nature.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

On 4/16/2012 3:22 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <jmi5a6$t7n$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes
>> On 4/16/2012 2:34 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <23659748.308.1334594933941.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcvh6>,
>>> Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes
>>>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>>>
>>>> The Theory of Everything
>>>>
>>>> Here are 3 facts:
>>>> 1 everything comes from life
>>>
>>> That appears to be obviously false. Do you claim that electrons, stars,
>>> volcanoes, iron ore, ozone, etc., come from life? And if so, how do you
>>> justify that claim?
>>
>> If God is life, and everything comes from God, then everything comes
>> from life, including inorganic things.
>
> Are you making those claims, or just guessing at how he might justify
> his claim?

I'm proposing a possible justification for his statement. Yes, I do
happen to believe it myself.

>>>> 2 humans get more humans
>>>
>>> Helacyton gartleri?
>>
>> Humans "get" more humans...and perhaps other things as well.
>
> If he made that concession he would have destroyed any semblance of an
> argument in his statement.

Well I think he meant that humans *reproduce* only other humans. And of
course that is trivially true.

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 16, 2:13 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 1:43:26 PM UTC-7, Kermit wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 12:47 pm, perry6...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:48:53 AM UTC-5, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> > > > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > > > The Theory of Everything
>
> > > > Here are 3 facts:
> > > > 1 everything comes from life
> > > > 2 humans get more humans
> > > > 3 there is design in everything.
>
> > > > Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.
> > > > So who really is following the science?
> > > > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>
> > > > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
> > > > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>
> > > God is a supreme entity that radiates light that in turns brings forth life and matter
>
> > No, we are all subroutines in a virtual environment game running on a
> > computer. God is a young man named Norbert, who eats too many corn
> > chips and can't get a date, but he can create (or destroy) galaxies
> > with the push of  a button. True, I have no more evidence for this
> > than you do, but I have the advantage in not requiring magic or
> > technology much more advanced than we have now.
>
> > Kermit
>
> Actually life popping out of the ground is magic. But we understand what creation can do, because we do it ourselves. You can take > raw materials and send man to the moon. etc. The idea of creation is not foreign to us as humans.  Also the tremendous difference, > between man and animals, is an obvious evidence for creation. We do things that have nothing to do with survival.

We do?

Name some.

> We ask question where did we come from what is the future,

And you think this is a qualitative difference, not just a matter of
the degree to which we are capable of investigating our ability to
survive?

> and man does not want to die.

Whereas animals are anxious for the chance to do so?

> We think that is a waste. Some will even freeze themselves in hopes of coming back to life. None of this has anything to do with
> 'evolution' or magic, it has to do with creation.

None of this has anything to do with a rational discussion. I think
the best thing for you to do is learn something about biology, add in
a smattering of philosophy of science, and then come back and try
again.

RLC

[Will in New Haven]

On Apr 16, 1:16 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 9:57:27 AM UTC-7, wiki trix wrote:

> > On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > > The Theory of Everything
>
> > > Here are 3 facts:
> > > 1 everything comes from life
> > > 2 humans get more humans
> > > 3 there is design in everything.
>

> > Sorry, but these are not facts. In fact, these are not even
> > intelligible word sequences, as far as I can tell. I wish you could
> > express yourself better.
>
> Can you break this with scientific evidence?

Do people owe you an _education_ Your original post was nonsense and
you expect people to take you seriously?

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

Why would you think someone this abysmally stupid would get THAT
right?

[Will in New Haven]

On Apr 16, 1:47 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:23 AM UTC-7, Kleuskes &amp; Moos wrote:

> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>
> > > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > > The Theory of Everything
>

> > That usually denotes a Grand Unified Theory and announcing one in this way may
> > be construed as somewhat pompous.
>

> > > Here are 3 facts:
> > > 1 everything comes from life
>

> > Last time I checked loads of stuff did not come from life. Daylight, for one.
>
> That is an assumption based on the hypothesis that there is no creator. The science backs up creation.
>

> There is no conflict with the universe being created and the known science.

That is so. However, there is no evidence _supporting_ the existence
of any creator. So it isn't really a matter on which there is any
scientific answer. In the words of the Buddha, it is a matter
unamenable to discourse.

[Dana Tweedy]

Scientists have not "blinded themselves". They are not refusing to look
for God. They know, however that appeals to the supernatural are not
useful in science.

> Just like that loaf of bread, they will never get the answer, because they have closed their minds by creating a methods of not detecting ID.

again, it's not that scientists refuse to try to find methods of
detecting "ID". Unless you can find some way of quantifying "design"
and distinguishing between something that is designed, and what only
appears designed, it's not a very useful assumption.

>
>
>
> So It is no that they don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know.

When something is not known, saying "I don't know" is a perfectly
acceptable response. Scientists are at least trying to find out,
without appealing to any particular religious belief. Once more,
scientists by and large don't reject God a priori. They simply are
aware that appealing to a supernatural being as an explanation is
intellectually sterile.

>>
>>
>> That doesn't follow.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.
>>
>> Again, it's not that scientists are deliberately rejecting the
>> possibility that God exists. Science just cannot work if one assumes
>> that a supernatural being can alter the conditions. Therefore one must
>> exclude supernatural influences as untestable.
>
>
> Yes they are.

You know this, how? It appears you are defaming a large group of
people here, with little, or no justification.

> Some have been trained not to go in that direction, their methods do not detect ID,and if you want a good career don't mention the creation word.

Again, you are making reckless assertions, and unfair accusations
against a large number of innocent people. Once more, it's not that
scientists refuse to look for "ID" or God, it's that hard won experience
over centuries has shown that appeals to the supernatural are not
useful. If one can invoke "intelligent design" to explain anything,
scientific methodology is useless.

>
> Id is detectable
> 1 find life just happening some place.

This is assuming that life is designed.

> 2 try to create life in a lab and record all the work and knowledge , and materials that go into creating life. That is ID.

No, that is chemistry. Scientists investigating abiogenesis are not
trying to "create life" but find out the conditions by which life most
likely began.



> 3 compare the two.

Which would be meaningless. Modern life is the result of billions of
years of evolution. Living things now are quite different from the
original life they developed from.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
>>>> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
>>>> change.
>>> Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans.
>>
>> No, the evidence that exists indicates that humans came from previous
>> populations of hominids, and that in the future, if our species hasn't
>> become extinct, new species of humans will
>
> That is assumption, what the evidence?

What do you claim is an assumption?

The evidence includes Genetic evidence showing a close relationship
between humans and other primates, behavioral evidence indicating
similarities between humans and other primates, biochemical evidence
showing the similarity of humans and other primates, and the fossil
evidence showing intermediate species between humans and their closest
living relatives.

> My evidence is that humans will have more humans as offspring. And there are no almost humans or any ex-humans.

As I've pointed out already, there are many "almost human" fossil
species, plus Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutangs, and other close
relatives of humans. "Ex humans" doesn't make sense, as all
descendants of humans are going to be human, even if they become a
separate species.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.
>>
>> There are many "almost human" fossil species. Homo neanderthalensis, H.
>> florenesis, H. erectus, H. habilis, H. rudolphensis, etc, etc..
>
> These are the missing links that go missing.

How do they "go missing"?

> Homo habilis was supposed to to 'evolve into erectus are now thought to be at the same time so now they have had to change their thinking on this.

You seem to have the common misconception that once a new species
arises, all members of the earlier species must disappear. This is not
true. H. habilis fossils appear earlier than H. erectus fossils.
Assuming that H. erectus evolved directly from H. habilis, and not from
some other hominid, there's no reason why some populations of H. habilis
could not have survived after H. erectus populations evolved.

> Habilis, now is a debate as to whether the fossils attributed to habilis even belong to to the same species.

Splitters vs lumpers has been a constant theme in fossil hunters for at
least a century and a half. That doesn't mean that H. habilis, and the
others are not genuine fossil hominids, and transitional fossils.

> Some experts have split these into 2 species and making a new one Homo rudolfensis.

So? How does that help your position any?

> Then you have the problem, that the scientists, do not know what a species is.

Not true. "Species" is known, even if life is a bit sloppy, and
doesn't always fit into human definitions.

> They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that.

Again, not true. For most living things, the standard definition of
species fits fairly well. It's only a relatively few cases where the
distinction gets fuzzy. In any case, this is more a problem for
creationists than for genuine scientists. If God created all life and
species were fixed, then the definition of "species" should be easy, one
size fits all.

>
> But in the end they all go missing.

None of the 14 or more species of fossil homind have "gone missing".
Where do you get this idea?

> Even Lucy, after 30 years now is considered nothing to do with humans.

Where do you get the idea that "Lucy" is "now considered nothing to do
with humans"? You have been pretty badly misinformed here.

Nearly every practicing palaeontologist today considers "Lucy" ie
the species Australiopithecus afaresis to be, if not a direct human
ancestor, one very close to the main trunk of the human family tree.

Please present any modern scientist who argues otherwise.

>
> What part of this is scientific?

None of your objections here are scientific. You've gotten some very
bad misinformation here, and some very large misunderstanding of how
evolution works.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> As for "ex humans", I don't see how that would be even possible.
>> Remember, individuals don't evolve, populations do. A new species of
>> human would still be human.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is why there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not become something else, over time.
>>
>> That's merely a matter of semantics. If one chooses to define one of
>> those finch species as "something other than a finch", they will have
>> become something else.
>
> Yes the scienitst do not know what a species is.

No, as pointed out before, scientists do know what a species is. It's
life itself which doesn't always fit human convenience. Most living
things fit within the current definition of species. That there is a
fuzzy area is bad for creationists, and "ID".

>
>
>>
>> Humans, for example, are the end result of nearly 4 billion years of
>> evolution, but we are still eukaryotes, still vertebrates, still
>> gnathostomes, still mammals, still primates, still apes, and still
>> hominids. None of that changes no matter how much our descendants
>> evolve.
>>
>>
>>> So if you go by the scientific evidence, #2 is correct.
>>
>> What scientific evidence do you mean?

No answer here???


snip apparent duplications

DJT

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 3:31:58 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <10046903.2327.1334614024927.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbvs10>,

> Mr.Dunsapy > writes

> >Yes they are. Some have been trained not to go in that direction, their
> >methods do not detect ID,and if you want a good career don't mention
> >the creation word.
> >
> >Id is detectable
>
> Perhaps. But no one has shown how,
>
> >1 find life just happening some place.
> >2 try to create life in a lab and record all the work and knowledge ,
> >and materials that go into creating life. That is ID. 3 compare the
> >two.
>
> including yourself.
>
> Your argument in insufficiently explicit, but it seems to be aiming at
> the argument that if humans can create life then all life is
> intelligently designed. That is not a convincing argument.

No, because what the scientists can only recognize the evidence of creation from what they themselves would do. So they look only for signs that man would make. Straight lines, building block,of stone etc.So they look for signs that show the use of raw materials. And in a way that we use things.But totally miss the signs that a creator made, the raw materials, the water the trees all the things that allow us to live. They take that for granted, as just being there. Sort of like the operating code. They some times call it mother nature. We have been given the ability to be able to think, and to create also. We are much different than the animals.
This is what the scientists are over looking. They say their methods do not look for ID and they don't have too. Pretty arrogant. When really they have been only copying or learning what already has been done.

Do you see that?

>
> For example, as previously mentioned, speciation has been repeatedly
> observed in the wild, under domestication and in the laboratory. That
> intelligent agents were involved (to the extent of cross-fertilising
> plants) in the recreation of Galeopsis tetrahit from its parent species,
> does not mean that Galeopsis tetrahit was originally created by
> intelligent agents; interspecific hybridisation and non-reduction of
> gametes are both processes which occur in nature.

I've said this before the scientists do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas about that. And there are 120 species of Finches, but they are all Finches. They do not become something else. So no 'evolution'
The scientists have not thought this through.


> --
> alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Mr.Dunsapy wrote:

> I've said this before the scientists do not know what a species is.
> They have at least 2 dozen ideas about that. And there are 120
> species of Finches, but they are all Finches. They do not become
> something else. So no 'evolution' The scientists have not thought
> this through.

I'm assuming you are pulling all your material from some uncredited
creationist web site, because you don't seem to understand your own
statements. Probably the person who put up the web site didn't either.
But it's obvious from your posting that you know nothing about biology.
For example, when you say there are 120 species of finches, what exactly
do you mean there? There are birds called "finch" in several distantly
related families (at least: Fringillidae, Thraupidae, Estrildidae). Each
finch group is related most closely to other birds we don't call
finches. For example, Darwin's finches are most closely related to other
birds called grassquits, which look rather finchlike, but also fairly
closely to bananaquits, which look nothing like finches. And in turn all
these are members of the immensely diverse family of tanagers
(Thraupidae), and they are all members of the even more diverse
9-primaried oscines. In order to incorporate everything that's referred
to as a finch, we have to expand our view to the still more diverse
superfamily Passeroidea, which includes over 1500 species, very few of
them finches. The evidence uniting all these birds by common ancestry is
copious.

Even within Darwin's finches, not all of them are finchlike; the warbler
finch Certhidea, as one might imagine, has a beak like a warbler's.

So when you spout your little rote-memorized factoids, you should not be
surprised that nobody is impressed. And yes, the scientists have indeed
thought this through. You're the one who hasn't been thinking.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Actually what I said was correct. The DNA allows for variation. But there are limits how far they can go.
Darwin's Finch's showed that the beaks changed when the conditions changed. But when the conditions went back to normal, within a couple of generations so did their beaks. Yet none of them became something other than a Finch. So if you go by the actual science, you have to agree with that.There are large difference's with humans. Some short, some tall, many different colors, isolated tribes can get very different looking. Big lips small thin lips. Yet they are all human. Yet there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. This is what the scientific evidence says. So the evidence is against the scientists hypothesis of 'evolution'
The problem with going to far in this is that the scientist do not know what a species actually is. They have at least 2 dozen main ideas, and more if you go to different scientist. So the question is do they even have a handle, on what we call species today. The real point of this is that there is no 'evolution', where there is a common descent by natural means.
An example is the Liger. They, even in a zoo setting can have an offspring, but those are very weak and need constant care. But that is a far as it goes. And they are all cats. DNA allows for variation, but also points a limit.
The fossil evidence supports creation not 'evolution'. That is why there are defined species. Not a mess of everything mixed with everything else.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 6:40:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

I get most on my info from the 'evolutionary' scientists. Because they can't help themselves to say the truth now and then.

[Slow Vehicle]

Mr. Dunsapy:

> I get most on my info from the 'evolutionary' scientists. Because they can't help themselves to say the truth now and then.

I challenge you to demonstrate that any of the material you are
misquoting comes from an evolutionary scientist. Citations, rather
than bald assertions, would be nice...

>The fossil evidence supports creation not 'evolution' (sic).

In what way? Precisely how does a set of nested hierarchies sorted in
developmental order "support creation"?

>The problem with going to (sic) far in this is that the scientist (sic) do not know what a species actually is.

I personally would be interested in you outlining "2 dozen" different
definitions of "species"...the problem (no, I don't expect you to
understand this) is that species tend to be snapshots of an ongoing
process. But seriously, list all 24. I'd love to see that.

>The real point is that there is no 'evolution', where there is common descent by natural means.

1. Wouldn't your phrase "common descent by natural means" rule OUT
oogity-boogity? If it's "natural", why do you want to say it is
created?
2. What do you think evolution is, if not the result of the process of
common descent with modification?

If you deign to answer any of these questions, please try not to just
parrot what you have said before, only louder,. Quote sources. Cite
scholarly works.

[John Harshman]

Hey, no fair! You didn't read anything I wrote. You just repeated some
more of your rote-memorized factoids.

[John Harshman]

I'm going to doubt, based on internal evidence, that you have ever read
anything written by any scientist.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 2:42:21 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <18066770.740.1334597601630.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcuv5>,

> Mr.Dunsapy <> writes

> >On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:10:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Norman wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
> >> >
> >> >The Theory of Everything
> >> >
> >> >Here are 3 facts:
> >> >1 everything comes from life
> >> >2 humans get more humans
> >> >3 there is design in everything.
> >> >
> >> >Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against
> >> >all three.
> >> >So who really is following the science?
> >> >These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
> >> >understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to
> >> >the ground.
> >> >
> >> >I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
> >> >I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions
> >> >the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Not everything comes from life. There is an enormous universe out
> >> with an enormous span of space and time for which life as we know it
> >> is totally irrelevant.

Time is relevent to me.

> >
> >That is an assumption based on a hypothesis. That is not scientific.
> >For example because many scientists believe in 'evolution' that also
> >means the universe and life had to have happened on it's own with out
> >ID. But the scientists do not know how life came about and they do not
> >know what started the expansion of the universe. So It is no that they
> >don't know, therefore it must be God. But it is why they don't know.
> >And that is because they blinded themselves before they even start to look.
> >
> It appears that you might be making a First Cause assertion. (I see no
> attempt to actually make an argument.) It also appears that you are
> claiming that being created by God is the same as coming from life. But
> by the standard understanding of life, God is not living.

This is a problem with scientist, they create a method of research that does not include ID. Then they say they don't need to. That means a God would not exist to them whether in reality he did or not. The same goes for a loaf of bread. The scientists could not detect that a loaf of bread was ID or not. With their methods they could only assume that bread happens naturally. So the only reason they know it was created is the baker told them. So for the scientists bread should not exist.
Of course they could not prove anything about this. The same with the origins of life.

> >>
> >> 2. Humans are got from humans and get more humans in the short term.
> >> Over geologic time spans -- hundreds of thousands of years -- things
> >> change.
> >Actually the only evidence we have says that humans come from humans.
> >That is why there are no almost humans and no ex-humans.That is why
> >there are 120 species of Finches but they are all Finches, they do not
> >become something else, over time. So if you go by the scientific
> >evidence, #2 is correct.
>
> There is voluminous evidence for the factuality with common descent with
> modification by natural selection and other processes; to exclude it
> requires taking an epistemological position on what qualifies as
> evidence with firstly is not the same as what is considered scientific
> evidence, and secondly would cripple science if science was restricted
> to the former.

Actually there is no common descent, this is a huge flaw in the scientists hypothesis. The scientific evidence does not support that. There are similarities in animals as what you would expect of a creator creating millions of animals.This is an assumption that because 'evolution' to the scientists is true, that means everything had to come from the first life on earth naturally. But that is circular thinking and 'evolution' is the evidence.
Many animals appeared suddenly, with no prior evidence nearly at the same time in the Cambrian period. They were fully formed and had no signs of 'evolving'. To go along with this many animals have hardly changed at all from those found, today.
Now what we do see is that God used the same method of creating life, by using cells,and DNA. So if you are going to create millions of animals, many would be made on after the other, in sort of a progression. That is what the scientists see, in the progressions.

There is also the idea that God created life and then later on used that life, to create other new life.

Actually told us he did that.

The bible says that when Eve was created it was from the materials from Adam. Not just DNA but muscle bone blood etc. Now if this also was used in animals, the genes would be carried on with the new life. This makes sense from many points of interest. It retains the history of previous populations also from the preceding species of life. This would only happen for so many animals then a new start would happen. As this would be more efficient than, trying to work from a very different kind of life. This also shows ID. If the scientists even bothered to look for ID, they could see this.
I call this the 'Patterns of Creation.'

[Slow Vehicle]

Mr Dunsapy:

First you say,

> The real point is that there is no 'evolution', where there is common descent by natural means.

Then you uncork this howler:

> Actually there is no common descent, this is a huge flaw in the scientists hypothesis. The scientific evidence does not support that.

Do you have any idea what consistency means? What logical thought
entails? What it means to tell the truth?

For that matter, what it means to actually answer a question, instead
of regurgitation sunday-school pap (speaking of 'schooling being one
way to get people to think the same thing"...)?

Some of us take this stuff seriously.

[Bill]

On Apr 17, 10:30 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This is a problem with scientist, they create a method of research that does not include ID. Then they say they don't need to. That means a God would not exist to them whether in reality he did or not. The same goes for a loaf of bread. The scientists could not detect that a loaf of bread was ID or not. With their methods they could only assume that bread happens naturally. So the only reason they know it was created is the baker told them. So for the scientists bread should not exist.
> Of course they could not prove anything about this. The same with the origins of life.

Nonsense, a scientist can easily tell that a loaf of bread is man-
made. We have seen bread made by humans countless times. We understand
very well how it is made. Someone looking at a new loaf of bread
instantly induces that it was made by another human being, using well
known methods. You don't infer design because you cannot imagine how
else something could have gotten there. You infer design when you
recognize the manufacturing process that was used and identify a
likely designer.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:17:08 -0700, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:

> 120 species of Finches

Hmmmm.....

Nine cites to that phrase that google knows about. I expect this is the
root of the meme:

"Likewise, losing a rare species of finch would not be as great a loss as
losing the common Atlantic horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus). There
are over 120 species of finches across the globe, as well as many other
closely related bird species in the same order, but there are only four
species of horseshoe crab worldwide...."

David Zeigler, _Understanding Biodiversity_, Praeger Publisher, 2007, pg
50.


Mr. Dunsapy spreads the meme all over youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTnjx-JRzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBjR2R9W-1U
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=aKauSITtnFA
http://www.youtube.ug/all_comments?v=aKauSITtnFA&page=2

and the British Center for Science Education:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2555&start=90

and Rational Skepticism:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/the-science-of-creation-
t27991-200.html


So, Mr. Dunsapy, were you misremembering _Understanding Biodiversity_?

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> Mr. Dunsapy:
>
> > I get most on my info from the 'evolutionary' scientists. Because they can't help themselves to say the truth now and then.
>
> I challenge you to demonstrate that any of the material you are
> misquoting comes from an evolutionary scientist. Citations, rather
> than bald assertions, would be nice...

Ok Now I gave what I said in my words. But I base what I say on the scientists words. Usually the scientists don't like when I quote from scientists they call it mine quotes. Which goes to show that it is more about the debate rather than the science.


Here is a Darwin quote. This is from The origin of the species Chapter 6:

-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

Even Darwin knew there were huge holes in 'evolution'. These have not been answered. And actually because more fossils have been found it is unlikely there will ever be found, the transitional animals the ones in between the species. Darwin goes on to say, ways he might get around this. But what he is saying is this is what it should look like and it doesn't. So to keep the hypothesis alive, they have to work around it somehow.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson said the situation this way, after years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.
This from 1953 and still things are the same. Nothing has changed the fossil record is still the fossil record, new fossils have not changed the out come.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:49:04 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

Yes they know because they see a man make it. But if left up their methods of research they could not detect it was from ID. The only conclusion they can come to is that it happened naturally. That is better odds than a casino. I have had one here says how do you detect ID? Well if you create a method not to detect it and then say you don't have too, you will never detect it. You got your answer you wanted. Then with the right kind of schooling and peer pressure, you keep it going.
You notice over the years they never quite get proof, it is close and a big noise, but it just fades away.
They have created "The Greatest Snow Job on Earth". A blizzard bits of info that tries to bury the truth.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:49:04 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

Yes but if you don't know the designer and you have a method that does not even attempt to look for ID, and your attitude, says I don't need to look for it. The chances are you won't find it. Especially so if you want the recondition of your peers. Or you want a good career.

[Prof Weird]

On Apr 17, 12:11 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > Mr. Dunsapy:
>
> > > I get most on my info from the 'evolutionary' scientists. Because they can't help themselves to say the truth now and then.
>
> > I challenge you to demonstrate that any of the material you are
> > misquoting comes from an evolutionary scientist.  Citations, rather
> > than bald assertions, would be nice...
>
> Ok Now I gave what I said in my words. But I base what I say on the scientists words.  Usually the scientists don't like when I quote from scientists they call it mine quotes. Which goes to show that it is more about the debate rather than the science.

True - evolution has all the science; you have gibbering crap.

As demonstrated here :

> Here is a Darwin quote. This is from The origin of the species Chapter 6:
>
> -Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

AND HE SPENT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE CHAPTER ANSWERING THOSE
QUESTIONS ! Posing a question AND THEN ANSWERING IT was the
rhetorical technique he used throughout the whole book !

But you wouldn't know that, since you merely mined a quote that you
'think' says what you want it to say.

> Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits?

Yes.

> Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Yes, given the FACT that all the expected intermediate eyes EXIST in
creatures living today, thus showing that the expected intermediate
structures could have existed.

> Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?

Yes - given the FACT that dogs can be (and have) been bred for
temprament.

> What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Building a wax wall around yourself requires no math. Building a bee-
sized wax cell in contact with other bee-sized wax cells AUTOMATICALLY
generates the familiar hexagon patterning. Nothing magical about; no
need to invoke the unknowable whims of magical sky pixies to explain
it.

> Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

Given that speciation HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN, accounting for them
is easy. The subpopulations build up enough differences as the
generations go by that they can no longer interbreed.

> Even Darwin knew there were huge holes in 'evolution'.

Got something resembling a cite to back up that idiocy ?

> These have not been answered.

HE ANSWERED THOSE 'QUESTIONS' YOU POSED IN THE VERY CHAPTER YOU WERE
FLATULATING ABOUT ! So he answered them himself about 150+ years
ago !

And just HOW, exactly, does blubbering 'MAGICAL SKY PIXIES DIDIT !!1!!!
1!' qualify as a useful or scientific answer ?

> And actually because more fossils have been found it is unlikely there will ever be found, the transitional animals the ones in between the species. Darwin goes on to say, ways he might get around this. But what he is saying is this is what it should look like and it doesn't. So to keep the hypothesis alive, they have to work around it somehow.

They generally do that by actually FINDING the fossils. Like
Tiktaalik. Or Gerobatrachus (a 'frogamander'). Or many others you
are apparently too slow-witted or lazy to find out about.

> Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson said the situation this way, after years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.
>
> Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.
> This from 1953 and still things are the same. Nothing has changed the fossil record is still the fossil record, new fossils have not changed the out come.

I note the '...' in the 'quote' above. I suspect the words DELETED
there change the meaning of the quote mine you parroted.

[Bill]

I'm not sure why you think that "their methods of research" do not
include trying to identify the designer and the manufacturing process.
It clearly does. You would not do scientific research on classical
Greek pottery without trying to understand the motives and methods of
the classical Greeks.

What is a strange method of research is to look at something and say
"This is really complicated. I can't imagine how it got here. I can't
imagine a human designer building it. Therefore, some other designer
must have built it. But I won't make any claim about the intentions of
that designer or the manufacturing process." If you have no idea how
something came about, the honest answer is to say "I don't know." If
you have an idea as to how something came about, but you are not sure,
then do some experiments.

Simply saying that a designer must have done it, tells you nothing
more than just admitting you don't know.

[Bill]

Are you kidding?? Find evidence of the intentions and methodology of a
designer capable of designing a porcupine and you'll be famous as
famous can be. You'll have a wonderful career. Overthrowing old ideas
is the route to fame in science. The problem is that lots of old ideas
are old because they've stood up to a lot of experimental tests. So
it's quite hard to overturn them.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:13:32 AM UTC-7, chris thompson wrote:

>> On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
>>> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>>>
>>> The Theory of Everything
>>>
>>> Here are 3 facts:
>>> 1 everything comes from life
>>

>> Like lava?

>>
>>> 2 humans get more humans
>>

>> Do you mean "beget" more humans?

>>
>>> 3 there is design in everything.
>>

>> It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
>> who see no design.

>>
>>>
>>> Creation is supported by all three.
>>

>> Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?
> In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> But the scientists are against all three.
>>

>> Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
>> You know, cell theory and all that...
> Yes OK

>>
>>> So who really is following the science?
>>

>> Scientists, and people who understand science.

>>
>>> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new
>>> understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to
>>> the ground.
>>

>> Yeah, so what?
>
> It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is
> not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non
> creation. If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.

This is an interesting claim, because it says that if scientists cannot show
that life can be created from non-life, then evolution is wrong and some
sort of "divine miracle" must have been responsible. But if scientists do
create life in the laboratory, or show how it could have happened without
divine intervention (and there is research on this in the field called
"abiogenesis"), the creationists would claim that it proves that life can
only be created by intelligent design.

Aside from that, evolution is an observed and very large body of facts.
This is distinct from the theory of evolution, which provides a scientific
framework that explains the fact of evolution.

>>
>>>
>>> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>>

>> As someone wrote long ago, the evidence you are looking for is hidden
>> in books.

>>
>>> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions

>>> of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>>
>> Word salad. State your case.
>>
>> Chris

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Slow Vehicle]

Mr. Dunsapy:

'Quote mining" is the questionably moral technique of using isolated
parts of a person's work, out of context, as supposed support of a
position not, in fact, espoused by that person. If your treatment of
Darwin's rhetorical questions is an example of how you usually employ
the works of scientists, it is no wonder you get accused of mining
quotes. I hope you read, but I doubt that you understood, Prof.
Weird's treatment of your intellectual dishonesty. If you want to be
taken seriously, clean up your act.

You also failed completely to explain why you made the following two
statements:

> The real point is that there is no 'evolution', where there is common descent by natural means.

and

> Actually there is no common descent, this is a huge flaw in the scientists hypothesis. The scientific evidence does not support that.

What do you think you mean by these two mutually exclusive comments?

[chris thompson]

On Apr 17, 12:11 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, April 16, 2012 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > Mr. Dunsapy:
>
> > > I get most on my info from the 'evolutionary' scientists. Because they can't help themselves to say the truth now and then.
>
> > I challenge you to demonstrate that any of the material you are
> > misquoting comes from an evolutionary scientist.  Citations, rather
> > than bald assertions, would be nice...
>
> Ok Now I gave what I said in my words. But I base what I say on the scientists words.  Usually the scientists don't like when I quote from scientists they call it mine quotes. Which goes to show that it is more about the debate rather than the science.
>
> Here is a Darwin quote. This is from The origin of the species Chapter 6:
>
> -Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
>
> Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?
>
> Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
>
> Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?
>
> Even Darwin knew there were huge holes in 'evolution'. These have not been answered. And actually because more fossils have been found it is unlikely there will ever be found, the transitional animals the ones in between the species. Darwin goes on to say, ways he might get around this. But what he is saying is this is what it should look like and it doesn't. So to keep the hypothesis alive, they have to work around it somehow.
>
> Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson said the situation this way, after years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.
>
> Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.
> This from 1953 and still things are the same. Nothing has changed the fossil record is still the fossil record, new fossils have not changed the out come.

Really? Do you think you might come up with a literature citation less
than 60 years old? And do you really think feathered dinosaurs aren't
something noteworthy?

Chris
snip

[John Harshman]

Probably not, since Heribert Nilsson was a strange sort of
group-saltationist. Not exactly a creationist, but the quote represents
his views well enough.

Now, the Darwin quotes are pure quote-mining.

[Harry K]

On Apr 16, 9:48 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> The Theory of Everything
>
> Here are 3 facts:
> 1 everything comes from life

> 2 humans get more humans

> 3 there is design in everything.
>

> Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.

> So who really is following the science?

> These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>

> I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

> I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.

So you redefine "fact" as "baseless assertion"?


Harry K

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:44 PM UTC-7, Prof Weird wrote:

You see I told you, if you use quotes, people don't like it, if you don't use them they think you make this stuff up.
The Darwin quote was used to show what even Darwin knew that the fossil record was a problem. I already said that he said what it should look like, but it doesn't. He went on later to explain his way around it. But that doesn't change the fact that,the fossil record is not what it should be , if 'evolution' were true.

The other thing is that, the scientist, though they have learned many things, claim great understanding on how things should be designed, like junk DNA, only to find out later, there are answers, that they know yet. And what they think they do know, can be changed.
So the science of today can be the science fiction of tomorrow. We have to wait and see.

Tiktaalik
“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.
Palaeontologist Jennifer Clack, University of Cambridge, UK; in: Curry, M., Ancient four-legged beasts leave their mark, ScienceNOW Daily News, sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/2, 6 January 2010.

The trouble is people hear of all these great finds. But don't keep up with all the shrinking back when they are shown to be wrong.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:56:00 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

This is different than that. I am not saying because the scientists do not know it must be God. The science should be able to stand on its own.

When it comes to the start of life, and cells, it is not only complicated, but it is impossible that it could just happen with ID. The cell has to be complete before it can live, but it

Actually that is what the scientists have done. 'Evolution' is based on life already in existence. Then working from it heredity. But in the first cell with coded DNA there would be no heredity. So what did it 'evolve' into?

Also how did the first cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how to?
It had to do this more than once or you get no increase. And not kill itself the first time?
'Evolution' demands that the origin of life be from non creation. Because if ID is involved in this at all, then 'evolution' is a myth.
So what you have is a hypothesis ('evolution') that needs another hypothesis ( 'abiogenesis'), to support the first hypothesis. That is circular thinking and not scientific.

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:05:44 PM UTC-7, Prof Weird wrote:

What is really magic is that life just popped out of the ground. And then morphed into all we see. Now that's magic.

[chris thompson]

Ah, you mean Genesis! I agree.

Chris

[Ernest Major]

In message
<16191248.73.1334672026155.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbckz3>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

You may have an idiosyncratic personal definition of 'evolution' for
which that is true, but the neither that fact nor the theory of
evolution demands that the origin of life be from non-creation.

> Because if ID is involved in this at all, then 'evolution' is a myth.
>So what you have is a hypothesis ('evolution') that needs another
>hypothesis ( 'abiogenesis'), to support the first hypothesis.

To reiterate: "That is an error. The theory of evolution is an
explanation of the diversity and disparity of life, not its origin. It
doesn't matter whether life on earth originated by spontaneous
abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, local
panspermia, global panspermia, accidental panspermia, directed
panspermia, or some other alternative that has escaped my recollection;
the evidence that the diversity and disparity were achieved by
evolutionary processes is still valid.

> That is circular thinking and not scientific.
>

I don't understand where you see a circle.

And, don't you think it a trifle arrogant to tell thousands of
biologists that their work is not scientific.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Slow Vehicle]

Mr. Dunsapy:

> You see I told you, if you  use quotes, people don't like it, if you don't use them they think you make this stuff up.
> The Darwin quote was used to show what even Darwin knew that the fossil record was a problem. I already said that he said what it should look like, but it doesn't. He went on later to explain his way around it. But that doesn't change the fact that,the fossil record is not what it should be , if 'evolution' were true.

The problem is not with using quotes, but MIS-using them. Any actual
reading of the rest of Darwin's book reveals that he raised those
specific objections as a rhetorical device (what teachers call an
"advance organizer") A further problem with this kind of dishonest
misuse of select material is that is casts doubt upon everything you
say. "Faithful in little/faithful in much" and all that...if you are
willing to lie about so simple a thing, what won't you distort? It's
like saying that "The bible says Jesus condemned homosexuality".

Do you think that the fossil record is what it "should" be, if all the
fossils were sorted by hydrological forces in a great flood?

Do you know ANYTHING about the last hundred years of work?

[chris thompson]

Just because you said it ahead of time does not mean it's not a quote
mine. You really should check out the Quote Mine Project on
talkorigins.org before you spout idiotic nonsense. These things have
been dealt with both here and there innumerable times. You're just the
latest in a long string of creationists who think they've found
something new.

You haven't.

Chris

snip

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Yes this is exactly what I said. This is their attitude. No wonder they can not prove the origins of life or 'evolution'.
They have blinded themselves.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:22:51 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Yes this is exactly what I said. This is their attitude. No wonder they can not prove the origins of life or 'evolution'.
>They have blinded themselves.

You are aware that there are simple facts that can only be explained by
biological evolution?


--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:39:59 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <16191248.73.1334672026155.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbckz3>,

> Mr.Dunsapy <> writes

Hi Ernest

'Evolution' demands that the origin to life be from non creation. The reasons this is so is because, if the origins to life is creation, then you have to ask did the creator create all the different kinds of life? That would mean no 'evolution'.
Or did the creator just start life and then programed into the DNA, so that we get all the variety of life we see today? But that is not the 'evolution' the scientists are promoting. They say it is just by natural means.
Some say life came from outer space, but there again you have to ask was it created or not. That does not get rid of the question, it just pushes it farther away.

So if any of these is correct you have to ask who that creator is, so it no different than many religions today. And 'evolution' would be a myth.

So 'evolution' demands that the origin of life be from non creation. It has to support the 'evolution' that the scientists are promoting. So the scientists created a method of research that does not even look for ID, so that no matter what the evidence says, it has to fit 'evolution'. That is circular thinking and not scientific. 'Evolution' becomes the evidence in which everything has to fit.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/16/12 7:13 PM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> [...] The DNA allows for variation.
> But there are limits how far they can go.

Really? What are those limits? We know that mutation, selection, and
drift are happening all the time, and nobody before you has found any
significant limiting factors. What exactly prevents evolution from
being inevitable?

> [...]
> The fossil evidence supports creation not 'evolution'.

Really? The fossil record shows that life has changed over more than
500 million years, with new "kinds" appearing more-or-less continuously
over that interval. And the new kinds typically appear in a time and
place where there was already something similar. The fossil record
clearly shows that biblical creation is dead wrong (but then, you do not
accept the Bible). I am curious which culture's creation account is
supported by the fossil evidence.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ernest Major]

In message
<18344986.149.1334678367127.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcpw7>,
Mr.Dunsapy <dun...@gmail.com> writes

The conventional definition of evolution in biology is a change of
allele frequencies within a population. This has been observed, so by
your logic, creation is disproved. (Your argument above boils down to
claiming that creator-created life is incapable of evolving. Fortunately
for religion that claim is not necessarily true.)

>Or did the creator just start life and then programed into the DNA, so
>that we get all the variety of life we see today? But that is not the
>'evolution' the scientists are promoting.

To repeat myself a third time: "That is an error. The theory of

evolution is an explanation of the diversity and disparity of life, not
its origin. It doesn't matter whether life on earth originated by
spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis,
local panspermia, global panspermia, accidental panspermia, directed
panspermia, or some other alternative that has escaped my recollection;
the evidence that the diversity and disparity were achieved by
evolutionary processes is still valid.

> They say it is just by natural means.
>Some say life came from outer space, but there again you have to ask
>was it created or not. That does not get rid of the question, it just
>pushes it farther away.
>
>So if any of these is correct you have to ask who that creator is, so
>it no different than many religions today. And 'evolution' would be a
>myth.
>
>So 'evolution' demands that the origin of life be from non creation. It
>has to support the 'evolution' that the scientists are promoting. So
>the scientists created a method of research that does not even look for
>ID, so that no matter what the evidence says, it has to fit
>'evolution'. That is circular thinking and not scientific. 'Evolution'
>becomes the evidence in which everything has to fit.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mr.Dunsapy]

Actually the main pages of Talk Origins. Are nowhere close to what the answers are.

Actually I would like to give the creation answers, to what they have up there, and put them beside their posts. But in my experience they won't do that. Because they are not interested in the answers, it is more about there is no God.

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:13:32 AM UTC-7, chris thompson wrote:

>> On Apr 16, 12:48 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" wrote:
>> > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> > The Theory of Everything
>> >
>> > Here are 3 facts:
>> > 1 everything comes from life
>>

>> Like lava?

>>
>> > 2 humans get more humans
>>

>> Do you mean "beget" more humans?
>>

>> > 3 there is design in everything.
>>

>> It's incumbent on you to show the evidence for design, not the people
>> who see no design.
>>
>> >

>> > Creation is supported by all three.
>>

>> Really? I don't think so. Where's the evidence for a creator in lava?
>In one of my earlier post I showed how the science supports a God.
>>

>> > But the scientists are against all three.
>>

>> Well, if you change "get" to "beget" scientists are in favor of it.
>> You know, cell theory and all that...
>
>Yes OK
>>

>> > So who really is following the science?
>>

>> Scientists, and people who understand science.
>>

>> > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>>

>> Yeah, so what?
>
>It means that facts can not be changed. That is why 'evolution' is not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation. If that can't be proved then 'evolution' is a myth.


This is a common Creationist assertion, but it's obviously false.
Regardless of how life first began, life adapts to the environment it
finds itself. That adaptation is the process called evolution. I'm
pretty sure you have been told that many times. Perhaps you fail to
understand the difference between a lack of evidence for your own
ideas vs making stuff up against those you oppose.

>> > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.
>>

[Mr.Dunsapy]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:07:42 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/16/12 7:13 PM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> > [...] The DNA allows for variation.
> > But there are limits how far they can go.
>
> Really? What are those limits? We know that mutation, selection, and
> drift are happening all the time, and nobody before you has found any
> significant limiting factors. What exactly prevents evolution from
> being inevitable?
>
> > [...]
> > The fossil evidence supports creation not 'evolution'.
>
> Really? The fossil record shows that life has changed over more than
> 500 million years, with new "kinds" appearing more-or-less continuously
> over that interval. And the new kinds typically appear in a time and
> place where there was already something similar. The fossil record
> clearly shows that biblical creation is dead wrong (but then, you do not
> accept the Bible). I am curious which culture's creation account is
> supported by the fossil evidence.

Now the scientists always start with a completed life, that has heredity,so that it has something to work with.So if you have this cell( hypothetically)and this cell has no heredity what did it 'evolve' into?

The fossil evidence supports creation. What we see are animals able to survive. By that I mean we do not see the transitional animals. The ones in between the species. The ones where new parts are forming, a leg for example, and placed in the proper locations. Which of these parts came first? Was it brain, lungs, blood, veins, muscles, nerves, cartilage, and bones( which bone came first?)
The fossil record does not show any of this. That is what Darwin meant when I quoted from him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:06:46 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"

>>
>>
>> >As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>> >
>> >The Theory of Everything
>> >
>> >Here are 3 facts:
>> >1 everything comes from life

>> >2 humans get more humans

>> >3 there is design in everything.
>>

>> Too bad that only #2 is demonstrably correct; the others are
>> demonstrably false (or at best unsupported by evidence).
>
>If you take number 2 as correct that means 1 and 3 are also correct.

Nope. The fact that humans breed more humans has absolutely
nothing to do with your erroneous (#1) and/or unsupported
(#3) assertions that "everything comes from life" (only
living things come from life; particle pairs are only one
example among many of things which don't "come from life")
and that "there is design in everything". So far, no one has
been able to provide objective criteria by which the
possible presence of design in nature can be evaluated;
perhaps you could rectify this omission? There's a Nobel
waiting...

>You actually have to go against the evidence of number 2, to say 'evolution' or abiogenesis is correct.

First, evolution only addresses changes in already-living
species, no offspring are demonstrably not the same species
as their parents, and copying errors in DNA are an observed
fact, so your statement regarding evolution is meaningless.

Second, abiogenesis is not precluded by the fact that
species breed (mostly) true; in fact, it has nothing to do
with it since it preceded the basis of evolution (inexact
copying of hereditable characteristics in living creatures).
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

> ...'evolution' is not a fact because it depend on the origin of life to be from non creation.

BZZZZT!!! This common error seems to never go away.
Evolutionary theory says *nothing* about the origin of life;
the theory would be unchanged whether life started through
strictly natural processes (classic abiogenesis), direct
action by a deity (classic creationism), or any other way
which can be imagined. Evolution deals *only* with
already-extant life and how and why it changes over multiple
generations.

And just FYI, evolution is not "only a theory", but an
observed fact in the lab and in nature. "Evolution", to a
biologist, means "change in allele distribution in a
population over time", nothing more, and such change has
been observed multiple times, sometimes as far as
speciation. Nothing more is needed.

The theory of evolution (the "ToE") was formulated to
explain the observations, as are all theories.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

On Apr 16, 3:25 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 3:16:22 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> > On Apr 16, 11:48 am, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As the song goes " you can't have one without the other."
>
> > > The Theory of Everything
>
> > > Here are 3 facts:
> > > 1 everything comes from life
> > > 2 humans get more humans
> > > 3 there is design in everything.
>

> > > Creation is supported by all three. But the scientists are against all three.

> > > So who really is following the science?

> > > These are facts like gravity is a fact, no matter what new understanding comes to light, it is still gravity that holds us to the ground.
>

> > > I am serious about this. So please answer with evidence.

> > > I say this because the scientist use interpretation and assumptions of the science when talking about the origins and 'evolution'.
>

> > You missed April Fools day by over 2 weeks.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Some fools are around all year long.:) ( sorry I couldn't resist)

If you stay around for a year you will prove this true.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:59:32 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

<snip>

>> ...Find evidence of the intentions and methodology of a

>> designer capable of designing a porcupine and you'll be famous as
>> famous can be. You'll have a wonderful career. Overthrowing old ideas
>> is the route to fame in science. The problem is that lots of old ideas
>> are old because they've stood up to a lot of experimental tests. So
>> it's quite hard to overturn them.

>Yes this is exactly what I said. This is their attitude. No wonder they can not prove the origins of life or 'evolution'.
>They have blinded themselves.

Do you ever actually read the posts to which you respond?
Bill says that any scientist who can overthrow existing
ideas and demonstrate design in nature will be famous (which
is true, it's probably Nobel material), and you respond that
this is exactly what you said, and that scientists are
willfully blind. So your contention is that scientists shun
fame and fortune?

Sheeeesh...

[alextangent]

In the "They're all mine, I tell you" category...

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/17/12 10:36 AM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:07:42 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/16/12 7:13 PM, Mr.Dunsapy wrote:
>>> [...] The DNA allows for variation.
>>> But there are limits how far they can go.
>>
>> Really? What are those limits? We know that mutation, selection, and
>> drift are happening all the time, and nobody before you has found any
>> significant limiting factors. What exactly prevents evolution from
>> being inevitable?
>>
>>> [...]
>>> The fossil evidence supports creation not 'evolution'.
>>
>> Really? The fossil record shows that life has changed over more than
>> 500 million years, with new "kinds" appearing more-or-less continuously
>> over that interval. And the new kinds typically appear in a time and
>> place where there was already something similar. The fossil record
>> clearly shows that biblical creation is dead wrong (but then, you do not
>> accept the Bible). I am curious which culture's creation account is
>> supported by the fossil evidence.
>
> Now the scientists always start with a completed life,

What exactly do you think "uncompleted life" would look like?

> that has heredity,so that it has something to work with.

Reproduction is part of the definition of life. If something doesn't
have "heredity" it isn't life.

> So if you have this cell( hypothetically)and this cell has no heredity what did it 'evolve' into?

Your question makes no sense. The first self replicating molecule
wasn't a cell, it was a precursor to a cell. The "first cell" had the
ability to reproduce, so it had "heredity". Also, please remember that
individuals don't evolve, populations do.

>
> The fossil evidence supports creation.

This assertion is not supported by the evidence.

> What we see are animals able to survive.

Obviously. If they weren't able to survive, they wouldn't exist.

> By that I mean we do not see the transitional animals.

Why do you imagine transitional animals would not be able to survive?
That doesn't make sense. Modern day life is descended from those that
did survive, including many transitional forms that appear in the fossil
record.

> The ones in between the species.

Again, why would those "between the species" not be able to survive?
New species come from variations on older species, which already had a
track record of survival. There's no reason why populations in the
process of speciation should not have been able to survive.

>The ones where new parts are forming, a leg for example, and placed in the proper locations.

Again, your ideas about how evolution works are rather strange. When
legs evolved, they didn't simply pop out at random until the right
arrangement occurred. Legs on tetrapods evolved from the fins on a
particular group of fish. They were "placed in the proper location" by
the genetics of the earlier population. It was a set of fairly small
steps that led from fish fins to amphibian legs. Fortunately, this
transition is demonstrated in the fossil record. See:

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/tetrapods.htm

> Which of these parts came first? Was it brain, lungs, blood, veins, muscles, nerves, cartilage, and bones( which bone came first?)

What came first was most likely single cells, which evolved into
multicelluar life. Once there were body tissues, eventually separation
of roles of the tissues evolved, leading to separate organs. Muscles
evolved when organisms starting moving on their own. Nerves evolved to
coordinate movement. Blood evolved when body tissues became large
enough that nutrients and oxygen couldn't be supplied from the water
outside the body. Veins and arteries evolved as circulation systems
developed.


In the line that led to humans, the notochord, which evolved into the
central nervous system, which preceded brain. Cartilage evolved before
bones, and some very successful organisms (sharks, rays) still have
cartilage without bone. As for "which bone came first", most likely
the spinal column, from which all bones derived.

> The fossil record does not show any of this.

The fossil record is, obviously going to show the development of hard
parts more clearly than soft parts such as muscles, nerves and other
organs. Bones are more likely to fossilize, so some of the above is
shown in the fossil record. Fortunately, other fields of study, such as
biochemistry, embryology. and genetics show more clearly how soft parts
developed.

> That is what Darwin meant when I quoted from him.

I suspect you have no idea what Darwin meant, and your "quote" was taken
out of context. Darwin used a technique in his writing where he posed
a question, and then went on to answer the question. Creationists tend
to quote Darwin's questions, and ignore the explanation that Darwin then
provided.


DJT