15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Bobby D. Bryant
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> just proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if
> evolution was proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly
> wrong it would not prove creation.
Yeah, and the funny thing is that while creationists see the theory
of evolution as The Big Threat, in actual fact geology had already
told us that literal interpretations of Genesis were incorrect well
before Darwin came up with his theory.
I.e., a six day creation, any sort of _recent_ creation, and a
global flood can all be refuted without reference to biology at
all, let alone to the ToE.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
TomS
<fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com>, Barry stated..."
>
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H) wrote:
>
>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>>news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>
>The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just proves
>that
>they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was proven beyond doubt to
>stand
>on it's own two feet (or is that four feet? I guess it depends on how it
>evolved).
>Creationists seem determined to destroy the system that gives them the computers
>they misuse, and they want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
While I agree with your intent, I would phrase it a little
bit differently. We have had creationists tell us that the
same evidence that is used for evolution is also evidence for
creation. That is because anything at all would be evidence,
in their minds, for creation: If the sky is blue, that is
evidence that it was created. If the sky is a nice cerise and
fuchsia paisley, that is because it was created.
The basic problem with creationism is that there is given
no definition or description of what creation might be: What
connection there is between the creator(s) (or designers) and
the things created; or: How we can tell the difference between
an act of creation and the normal workings of the natural world.
Tom S.
Reverend Lovejoy
news:ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
that everthing around them was created for them.
--
"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Lani girl
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
proves that
> they have no evidence for creation.
Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
origin of life.
Dunno
Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
Christians. Christians generally don't have a problem with
evolution. Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
True Christians.
(Headers trimmed to four groups)
.
TomS
<ajb9dg$s1q$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."
It didn't take geology to tell people that the six-day
creation couldn't be literally true. From earliest times,
people realized that there was something amiss about the
idea that the sun was put in the firmament to mark the
passage of days and nights ... but that before this was
done, there were three days and nights.
Tom S.
Packman
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Lani girl
"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> Christians.
Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
beliefs are.
> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> evolution.
Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> True Christians.
One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".
Denis Loubet
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Evolutionists attack Christianity? Why didn't I get the memo?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Tony Hiatt
"Lani girl @att.net>" <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xbb69.10027$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I am a Christian. I have no problem with evolution. I am convinced that
Christian fundamentalism is based on bad theology.
Score "1" for "Dunno."
Tony H.
Thomas H. Faller
>I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
>because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
>might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
>we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
>god, man is just like any other animal.
My take on this is that they could accomodate themselves to a
4 billion year old earth, if there was a Garden of Eden story
possible somewhere along the line.
Evolution denies the possiblity of Adam and Eve as a first
human couple. That implies that there is no Original Sin, and
therefore, redemption through Jesus was unnecessary. It spoils
the whole party - lifelong guilt, striving for salvation,
eternal life, etc...
Evolution doesn't just make them unspecial, it makes them
unsaved.
Tom Faller
And Lani-girl, if you'll take off the blinkers for a moment,
it doesn't just apply to Christian mythology, but to almost
everyone else's, too.
--
Thomas Faller fal...@peachtree.sgi.com
Customer Support Center Voice: (770) 631-2258
Silicon Graphics, Inc. FAX: (770) 631-2224
Michael Painter
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:cfb69.82741$Yd.37...@twister.austin.rr.com...
The one that said It's not necessary for evolutionists to attack
christianity, they do it better themselves or the one that warned against
Lani_girl.
The latter advised having a barf bag ready when you read her vile attacks.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what
> their actual beliefs are.
I see that you're "special" style of argument isn't reserved for
refutations of the theory of evolution.
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked
> with.
See above.
>> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True
> Christian", and as such you are unqualified to state what such
> people "really believe".
If you're quite done, God would like to have his throne back now.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Joe Zawadowski
Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
> that everthing around them was created for them.
>
> --
Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
Joe Z. a.a#249
--
"Freedom begins between the ears."
Edward Abbey
"Which ever way your pleasure tends,
if you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind"
Hunter
Bobby D. Bryant
> I see that you're "special" style of argument
s/you're/your/, of course.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> I am a Christian.
ditto.
> I have no problem with evolution.
ditto.
> I am
> convinced that Christian fundamentalism is based on bad
> theology.
what he said.
> Score "1" for "Dunno."
make that "2".
--Mike Dunford
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
--Charles Babbage
Dunno
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > Christians.
>
> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
> beliefs are.
Can't prove but I can ascertain. Many posters here have stated their
beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary when the
folks state their beliefs.
>
> > Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
So I've never met or talked with Christians. Chez Watt? I live in the
Bible Belt. Are they all hiding from me?
>
>
> > Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't
> > True Christians.
>
> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True Christian",
> and as such you are unqualified to state what such people "really believe".
>
I'm made aware of what Fundies believe on a regular basis. They
regularly attempt to impose what they "really believe" on the rest
of the populace.
.
Mark Isaak
Creationsists spend far, far more time attacking Christianity. They
are the ones who insist that all interpretations but theirs are wrong.
Mark Isaak
Jacek Podkanski
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H)
> wrote:
>
>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>> news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>
>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>
> The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
I believe in creation and do not spend much time atacking evolution. I'd
rather discuss facts of life.
> proves that they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was
> proven beyond doubt to be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove
> creation. Creation must stand on it's own two feet (or is that four feet?
> I guess it depends on how it evolved). Creationists seem determined to
> destroy the system that gives them the computers they misuse, and they
Your views are new to me. Why creationists would do it. Do you that
creationists believe that computers appeared as a result of some kind of
abiogenesis and evolved to present form?
> want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
I think everybody should have chance to make their own mind instead being
indocrinated.
>
>
> -Barry
> ========
> Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
> Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
> Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
--
Jacek Podkanski
Jacek Podkanski
<snip>
>> feet? I guess it depends on how it evolved). Creationists seem determined
>> to destroy the system that gives them the computers they misuse, and they
<snip>
Below is fragment where I made mistake cutting word think, and it is as it
was intended to be.
Your views are new to me. Why creationists would do it. Do you think that
creationists believe that computers appeared as a result of some kind of
abiogenesis and evolved to present form?
--
Jacek Podkanski
Lani girl
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > Christians.
> >
> > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> > beliefs are.
>
> Can't prove but I can ascertain.
Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
the Bible.
David Sienkiewicz
But what has that to do with the composition of "evolution supporters" on
talk.origins, Lani girl?
< unmarked snip by Lani girl here - noted >
Frank J
Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
publications.
rossum
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
evolution.
rossum
Jon Fleming
<"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> Christians.
>
>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>beliefs are.
>
>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
"Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
the origin of life"
Or do you really have data to back that up? If so, please trot it
out.
While you're at it, what's your support for your claim that "...given
random genetic mutation and given the time frame that the
Evolutionists claim for the "evolution" of Man from his supposed ape
ancestor, that sufficient mutations could not have occurred." (That's
a direct quote from you, in <http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z12232381>).
<snip>
Demosthenes
"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Evolutionary scientists spend their time searching for new evidence, or
teaching, inschools, about the evidence that exists.
One of the problems with the onslaught of the ignorance called creation is
that real scientists paid little attention to this fraud until creationists
spent more time thrying to force it into public schools.
Still, even now, the main defense against the ignorance of creationism has
been the legal system.
That's why the proponents of Intelligent Design are totally bypassing the
scientific establisment - sinc ethey have no evidence, they would only be
affective trying to sway public opinion and, by legislation catering to
public opinion, the law.
Forest Ghost
Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >
> > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.
Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
the book of Genesis is true?
And regarding this foolishness that Christians can't believe in
evolution, you should consider that 53% of americans believe in
evolution, yet 83% are Christian. Hmmmm. Oh, wait, let me guess. They
lied on the census question about religion. No, wait, the evil atheists
who control our liberal government lied about the numbers. No, it was
the homosexuals! No, the U.N.! Bwahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!! Here comes
the new world order!!!!
As always, I'm eager to see if you take option a: avoiding the issue or
option b: ignoring me.
-Forest Ghost
Thomas P.
wrote:
One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman
Catholicism, does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is
where I was first told about the theory by a nun. I have known many
priests, brothers and nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything
negative about evolution. It was taken for granted as an established
scientific theory.
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
Dunno
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > Christians.
> > >
> > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > > beliefs are.
> >
> > Can't prove but I can ascertain. <unsnip> Many posters here have
> > stated their beliefs on occasion in posts. No assuming is necessary
> > when the folks state their beliefs. </unsnip>
>
>
> Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by reading
> the Bible.
>
I really don't see the relevance of that comment to the point in
question unless you have some biblical material handy that supports
your assertion that evolutionists attack Christianity.
.
Dirk Murcray
> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> proves that
> > they have no evidence for creation.
>
> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> origin of life.
Evolutionists refute creationist's distortions of evolution and attack
their baseless hypotheses. Individual evolutionists may attack
Christianity, but as it isn't a theory, evolutionists as a group do
not attack Christianity. The assertion is a common Tu Quoque ploy of
creationists.
Bigdakine
>From: "Lani girl" "©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com "@att.net>
>Date: 8/13/02 10:58 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <nAe69.10958$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Indeed, and in many cases the rest of you have ascertained a heightened level
of ignorance.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Mark K. Bilbo
Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
[Woden]
Mark K. Bilbo
I take that back. I saw something in the RC group where she said
"Orthodox."
Apparently she's not RCC...
David Jensen
rossum <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in
<vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
><"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>>> Christians.
>>
>>Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their actual
>>beliefs are.
>>
>>> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>>> evolution.
>>
>>Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
>1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
>evolution.
And we can add that most other Confessional Christians (if you don't
recite either the Apostles or Nicene Creed during Sunday Mass/Service,
you probably are not Confessional) have no problem with evolution,
either.
I'd be surprised if 10% of Christians were "scientific" Creationists.
Lani girl
The other poster admitted he can't prove anything, but insisted he can
"ascertain" things.
I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the satisfaction
of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.
THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
Lani girl
"Demosthenes" <hon...@man.com> wrote in message
news:yFf69.121025$uj.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> > proves that
> > > they have no evidence for creation.
> >
> > Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> > origin of life.
>
> The fact is, as usual, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
No less so than you, Demosthenes.
Lani girl
"Mark K. Bilbo" <n...@llow.ed> wrote in message
news:ulj860e...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:26:47 -0700, Thomas P. wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC), fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >>> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> >>> > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution
> >>> > just
> >>> proves that
> >>> > they have no evidence for creation.
> >>>
> >>> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> >>> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> >>> the origin of life.
> >>
> >>Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
> >>evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
> >>hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
> >>publications.
> >>
> >>
> > One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman Catholicism,
> > does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is where I was first
> > told about the theory by a nun. I have known many priests, brothers and
> > nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything negative about evolution.
> > It was taken for granted as an established scientific theory.
> >
>
> Looni claims to be RCC, by the way...
Nope, no more so than you do, Bilbo.
Lani girl
"Forest Ghost" <fores...@hatpap.com> wrote in message
news:3D59940C...@hatpap.com...
>
>
> Lani girl wrote:
> >
> > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2002081314...@hushmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lani girl wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > > > > Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > > > > Christians.
> > > >
> > > > Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> > actual
> > > > beliefs are.
> > >
> > > Can't prove but I can ascertain.
> >
> > Fine, and many of the rest of us have ascertained various things by
reading
> > the Bible.
>
> Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
> feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
> the book of Genesis is true?
OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
age.
Lani girl
"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
> 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
> 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> evolution.
Except your Point Number 1 is false. Besides, you never talked with the
Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World of
Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
Lani girl
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:du0jlu8op9ofnp5q5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> >> Christians.
> >
> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
actual
> >beliefs are.
> >
> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> >> evolution.
> >
> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>
> You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
>
> "Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> the origin of life"
Apparently it really bothered you that I took the corresponding statement,
made earlier by the Christian-hater, and simply turned it around on you
Atheists.
Good.
David Jensen
"Lani girl" <"©<:o(docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote in
<xPi69.11359$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
>female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
>age.
Science doesn't observe anything about a creation.
David Sienkiewicz
message news:vPi69.11358$Ep6.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> > <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > >> Christians.
> > >
> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > >beliefs are.
> > >
> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > >> evolution.
> > >
> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> >
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
Have YOU?
Have you read the communication?
> > 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>
> A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
Which "orthodox" are we talking about?
> The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
> and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
> ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
> and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
> number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
Ah, well you, it would seem have decided that these are not REAL christians,
eh?
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false.
No, point 1 is true.
> Besides, you never talked with the
> Pope about that,
Neither have you.
> but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
Um, well, no.
You do that much better than he does.
> Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World
of
> Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
By whom?
David Sienkiewicz
Nope. Not quite.
You see, the Bible DOES "report" that GOD CREATED [emphasis added] but that
is NOT "indeed what science observes."
Unless, of course, you have some evidence for God and then can follow it up
with anything showing God doing any creating.
There's a difference between a claim and a "report," Lani girl.
But then, YOU get confused over who thought the Earth was flat...
David Sienkiewicz
CONSIDERABLY less than him from where I'm sitting, Lani girl.
Still snipping what you can't answer from all of these articles, I see.
>
David Sienkiewicz
Ah, there's that marvelous example of christian love.
You really are one pathetic individual, Lani girl; and a poor christian, to
boot.
By the by, just how many atheists do you suppose you're addressing?
I'd like to know so that we can get a good idea who you mean by "you
Atheists."
David Sienkiewicz
Having trouble keeping your attributions straight, Lani girl?
"The other poster" was Dunno.
> I then replied that many of us also can't "prove" things to the
satisfaction
> of you Atheists, but we too can ascertain things by reading the Bible.
And that wasn't at all relevant to the point under discussion.
> THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
'Fraid not, Lani girl.
Gyudon Z
Actually, science observes seven different degrees of hermaphroditism and a
number of syndromes related to nondisjuction of sex chromosomes.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
LStew36183
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.ma
xwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: "Bobby D. Bryant" bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
>Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism,
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:29:08 +0000 (UTC)
>Organization: dis-
>Lines: 34
>Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <ajbjqh$3nb$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
>References: <ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
><2002081312...@hushmail.com>
><Xbb69.10027$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1029263348 64583 128.100.83.246 (13 Aug 2002
>18:29:08 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:29:08 +0000 (UTC)
>User-Agent: Pan/0.11.4 (Unix)
>X-Comment-To: "Lani girl =?iso-8859-1?b?PKki?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_?=
>=?iso-8859-1?q?=3C=3Ao=29docw=AE=B2=B0=B0=B2=5Fis=5Fa=5Fcrock=40hotmail=2
Ecom=3E?=
>Xref: lobby talk.origins:977282 alt.agnosticism:100015
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:763759
>
>
>
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:08:09 -0600, Lani girl <© wrote:
>
>
>> "Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>>> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>>> Christians.
>>
>> Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what
>> their actual beliefs are.
>
>refutations of the theory of evolution.
>
>
>>> Christians generally don't have a problem with evolution.
>>
>> Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked
>> with.
>
>
>
>>> Fundamentalists do, but fundamentalists aren't True Christians.
>>
>> One suspects that you are neither a "Fundamentalist" nor a "True
>> Christian", and as such you are unqualified to state what such
>> people "really believe".
>
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
...God takes look at throne, sez EWWWWW!!!!.... and runs from room
clutching his mouth.
lstew
Michael Nash
news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> proves that
> > they have no evidence for creation.
>
> Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
How much time does the pope spend attacking Christianity? IIRC he's an
evolutionist...
--
Michael Nash
aa # 1651
Reinstated EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers
Undermining Christian Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing
Things)
Founder, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
*************
I pledge resistance to the flag of the United States of Americhrist, and to
the theocapitalist empire for which it stands: one nation undereducated,
irredeemably, with liberty and justice for all major campaign contributors.
Michael Nash
news:cfb69.82741$Yd.37...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> > > The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just
> > proves that
> > > they have no evidence for creation.
> >
> > Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> > origin of life.
>
Memo? There was no memo...
<EAC shredder>
WHIRRRRRR............
Thomas P.
That alone is good reason to doubt it.
>
>--
>Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
>________________________________________________________________
>If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
>believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
>existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
>to believe in him.
>
>[Woden]
>
Thomas P.
Dunno
Which is relevant to your assertion that evolutionists attack
Christianity how?
>
> THAT is the relevence, Dunno.
>
What the other poster was asking is what have you ascertained
by reading the Bible that supports your assertion that evolutionists
attack Christianity. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the mark.
.
Derek Stevenson
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
>
> > 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>
> A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
>
> The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant
third,
> and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
> ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as
ministers,
> and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
> number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
>
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false. Besides, you never talked with the
> Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
>
> Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World
of
> Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
Despite considering some Catholic doctrines to be evil, twisted and
inhuman, I'd always had a certain amount of respect for Catholicism. This
was due to my perception that it had a positive attitude towards science
(at least in the last couple of centuries) and a much lesser tendency than
Protestantism to spawn all manner of nutjobs.
I appreciate your sterling efforts, as well as those of Mark Johnson and
Pagano, to disabuse me of the latter delusion. I still think wacked-out
Catholics are less common than wacked-out Protestants, but it seems clear
that I must revise my estimate of their relative abundance.
Lani girl
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:93fjlus0sg882l7b1...@4ax.com...
Try telling THAT to the scientists who are proponents of the Big Bang
Theory, or to those Junk Scientists who are proponents of Evolution Theory!
Dick
(Joe Zawadowski) wrote:
>In article <I9a69.121673$8M1.25...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Reverend
>Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
>> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
>> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
>> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
>> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
>> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
>> that everthing around them was created for them.
>>
>> --
>
>Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
>baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
>'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
>evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
>
>Joe Z. a.a#249
Hi Joe,
I wanted to jump into this thread and your comments are close to what
I wanted to say.
It looks to me that the rejection of the theist efforts to find more
about what appears to be "intelligent design" as opposed to
"spontaneous evolution" has been combined with the churches'
protection of their dogma.
I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
evolution." Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
building block could simultaneously come into being.
When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
(in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
to be useful in survival.
The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
hand.
Jon Fleming
I note that you snipped and did not respond to my polite request for
supporting data.
I note that you snipped and did not respond to my oft-repeated request
for support for your claim that "...given random genetic mutation and
given the time frame that the Evolutionists claim for the "evolution"
of Man from his supposed ape ancestor, that sufficient mutations could
not have occurred."
Bad.
>
>Good.
Dick
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:52:51 +0000 (UTC), in article
><fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com>, Barry stated..."
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:03:09 +0000 (UTC), jhof...@fullerton.edu (Jim H) wrote:
>>
>>>j...@c-me.com (Zaph'enath) wrote in message
>>>news:<1ddea6ff.02061...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
>>>>news:<18510aff.0206...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>> > 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
>>>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N18921311
>>>>
>>>> The article is great. It reads like a T.O Faq,
>>>> but with cool graphics ;-) I was slightly (though
>>>> I admit, pleasantly) surprised that they came right
>>>> out and called it nonsense. It seems the case,
>>>> usually, that the popular magazines try to be more
>>>> careful not to offend the fundies _directly_. It is
>>>> actually good to see them unafraid for a change.
>>
>>The fact that creationists spend so much time attacking evolution just proves
>>that
>>they have no evidence for creation. Even if evolution was proven beyond doubt to
>>be completely and absurdly wrong it would not prove creation. Creation must
>>stand
>>on it's own two feet (or is that four feet? I guess it depends on how it
>>evolved).
>>Creationists seem determined to destroy the system that gives them the computers
>>they misuse, and they want to poison the minds of children and feeble adults.
>
> While I agree with your intent, I would phrase it a little
>bit differently. We have had creationists tell us that the
>same evidence that is used for evolution is also evidence for
>creation. That is because anything at all would be evidence,
>in their minds, for creation: If the sky is blue, that is
>evidence that it was created. If the sky is a nice cerise and
>fuchsia paisley, that is because it was created.
>
> The basic problem with creationism is that there is given
>no definition or description of what creation might be: What
>connection there is between the creator(s) (or designers) and
>the things created; or: How we can tell the difference between
>an act of creation and the normal workings of the natural world.
>
> Tom S.
I see the same problem Tom. But try and get any discussion going to
define what are the qualities a intelligent designer might have.
Those that don't want any part in such discussion and just want to
pounce. Unfortunately, this fun game of attack and counter attack
also gets in the way of reasonable investigation.
Fortunately I thought about the questions of creations outside
biblical considerations for years before finding these newsgroups. I
can well understand the beauty and effort put into forming an
understanding of the evolution of the universe and life. I have no
need to defend a creed of any sort. But, I do have a need to explore
possibilities of an intelligent design. I fail to see how this
interest need defense, but many cry "proof, proof." How can there be
any proofs when the very basic questions remain ill formed and a
consensus on the how to describe such a function yet to be formed?
I have been getting upset with the media this week, time after time
they would ask their guest about Bush and the Iraq situation, "Has the
president made his case?" I have seen no effort by the
Administration to make its case. No one appeared before the
congressional committee in its brief two day information meetings, no
presidential speeches to the nation laying out a case. So, why was
the media asking everyone that was interviewed, "Did the
Administration make its case?"
I feel the constant string of "prove it, prove it" are much the same.
How can anyone prove anything without a serious effort to gather
information, define terms, devise ways of testing. How can those that
have found an answer ruling out intelligence, be upset with some that
want to look?
It is interesting to wonder what would be an appropriate group to make
such an effort. The established religions cannot for any answer that
did not support their dogma would have to be compromised. Scientists
that started using "god did it" to explain gaps in information, would
be ostracized.
Thanks to these newsgroups I am becoming exposed to some effort by
others on both sides. Smolin has laid out a readable review of the
evolution of the cosmos in his book. I just bought Dembski's "Science
and Evidence for Design in the universe.
So, lighten up, not all 'creationists' are the same.
Dick
As I see it no destruction is in anyway desired by me at least. I see
"intelligent design" as a part of evolution. After all, what we are
leaving behind is the concept that some god thought up the universe
and it appeared. Without the effort of so many to find the clues and
show how most of evolution could have happened we would still have to
accept the 'god did it' explanation for everything.
Definitions, descriptions, conjectures, test designs all are missing
in these discussions. Attacking those that have no answers does not
remove the question, "Is their intelligence indicated in evolution?"
If so what are the qualities and how can they be tested?
Scott
"Derek Stevenson" <derekste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajdmqk$1al39q$1...@ID-139629.news.dfncis.de...
You're mistaken, Lani girl, by her own admittance, isn't Roman Catholic.
Pagano, I believe, doesn't think JPII is the legit Pope; I've asked him and
he refused to answer to that question. Mark? I haven't read any of his posts
for a long time. He and Pagano seem to think of themselves as pre-VII
Catholics.
Scott
macaddicted
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> > <"©<:o)docw®"°°"_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > >> Christians.
> > >
> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > >beliefs are.
> > >
> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > >> evolution.
> > >
> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> >
> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
Actually the Church began to look more favorably on evolution in 1950
(Humani Generis). We do not need to speak to the Pope to verify the
first point- we have his speaches. The one to which the writer is
referring is probably his 1996 speach to the Pontifical Academy of
Science.
[snip]
>
> > 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
> > evolution.
Well, that is kind of a large step to take....
>
> Except your Point Number 1 is false. [snip ad hominem]
It is true, with this caveat: "Consequently, theories of evolution
which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the
mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere
epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. " (
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html . Message to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences. October 22, 1996. paragraph 5.)
[snip]
--
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
David Sienkiewicz
Nothing like a bit of a diversion, is there, Lani girl?
Unless you're being remarkably unobservant, you know that this is not the
sort of thing to which he referred, now don't you?
Can you provide evidence for supernatural creation or not?
Reverend Lovejoy
news:f1oklucdu3j7ero7o...@4ax.com...
"seem impossible" does not make it impossible. All evidence points that it
did happen, and not necessarily simultaneously. Remember that evolution is a
long, slow process. It started with simplistic single celled life,
reproducing asexually. The stem cell evolved as there became a need for it.
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
The material universe did not "evolve", it merely followed the laws of
physics, and took 10 billion years to reach a point life could start to
evolve. I suppose you could mean a "chemical evolution" in which the most
stable chemical configurations tend to stick around longer. As for
biological evolution, the speed is directly dependent on the number of
evolutionary pressures on a species.
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
More explanations are forthcoming. Science increases our knowledge of the
world every day.
Spiritual belief is hardwired into the brain. It has to do with our
intelligence granting us the ability to recognize patterns, and our tendency
to remember hits but not misses. Creative talents stem as a byproduct from
our ability to logically reason (math) and our need to communicate
(linguistic). The ability to picture things as they "might be" is decidedly
an evolutionary advantage, because it gives us the ability to plan ahead.
Beauty and love are innate senses that incite us to protect things important
to us, and vital to our own survival and the survival of our genes. This is
why we "love" our spouses, family, babies, children, and our tribe.
> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
> hand.
They are not rejected. Some things just take a little bit more reasoning to
explain than others.
--
"This so called new religion is nothing
but a pack of weird rituals and chants
designed to take away the money of
fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40
times, but first let's pass the collection
plate."
Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Thomas P.
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:39:53 +0000 (UTC), joseph.z...@duke.edu
>(Joe Zawadowski) wrote:
>
>>In article <I9a69.121673$8M1.25...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Reverend
>>Lovejoy" <epap...@remove-these-words.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think creationists are generally more offended by evolution than geology
>>> because evolution attacks the basic principle of man's specialness. Geology
>>> might throw into question the age of the earth, but evolution asserts that
>>> we evolved from monkey-like creatures, and we weren't created "special" by
>>> god, man is just like any other animal. I think this is what upsets them the
>>> most, the idea that we're not special goes against the supreme arrogance
>>> that everthing around them was created for them.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Yes. That is certainly part of it. I've had more that one southern
>>baptist tell me that they thought evolution might apply to the
>>'animals', but that man was a special creation of God and not an
>>evolved creature. One cannot reason with such people.
>>
>>Joe Z. a.a#249
>
>
>Hi Joe,
>
>I wanted to jump into this thread and your comments are close to what
>I wanted to say.
>
>It looks to me that the rejection of the theist efforts to find more
>about what appears to be "intelligent design" as opposed to
>"spontaneous evolution"
Spontaneous evolution?
>has been combined with the churches'
>protection of their dogma.
>
>I reject "Revealed dogma".
No you don't
> I and some others that post in these
>groups are looking for how creation
Shouldn't you first establish that there was a creation, or was that
revealed to you?
>has happened and some of us see
>big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
>evolution."
Is spontaneous evolution another creationist scam?
>Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
>the "Singularity"
Evolution from the Singularity? Where do you get this stuff from?
>I endorse them and want more information to be
>discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
>that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
>the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
>impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
>building block could simultaneously come into being.
Perhaps you should take some actual courses in biology. It might help
you with your questions.
>
>When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
>universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
>evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
>
>At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
>explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
>craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
>diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
>emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
>composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
>(in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
>to be useful in survival.
>
>The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
>it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
>hand.
>
They are not. I would love to see some evidence.
Derek Stevenson
news:f1oklucdu3j7ero7o...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
> groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
> big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
> evolution."
Perhaps you should start by considering the possibility that at least some
of those apparent "unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps" are holes in
your personal understanding of the science, rather than in the science
itself.
> Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
> the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
> discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
> that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
> the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
> impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
> building block could simultaneously come into being.
Here's an example of what I mean. You "see no way that such complex parts
to such a basic building block could simultaneously come into being". Have
you considered the possibility:
a) that the fact that *you* see no way that this could have happened does
not prevent others, perhaps better informed than yourself, from seeing a
way; or
b) that they didn't have to come into being *simultaneously*?
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve?
We're talking about two different kinds of "evolution" here. And what,
exactly, is the problem?
> It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
No kidding.
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations:
Explanations *have* been proposed for these and other phenomena, you
know -- or do you? Have you considered the explanations that have been
presented already? What are they, and why do you consider them inadequate?
> Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
>
> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
> hand.
Where do you see that happening?
Mark Whickman
> I reject "Revealed dogma". I and some others that post in these
> groups are looking for how creation has happened and some of us see
> big unexplained and perhaps unexplainable gaps in "spontaneous
> evolution." Far from rejecting the discoveries in the evolution from
> the "Singularity" I endorse them and want more information to be
> discovered. That said, I also see some aspects of life and creation
> that the data so far, leaves open. For me, one big question is how
> the "stem cell" evolved? The membrane, the contents, the Dna all seem
> impossible and I see no way that such complex parts to such a basic
> building block could simultaneously come into being.
Plain membrane is fairly simple - soap forms a good analogue of it in water,
with sodium replacing phosphate. DNA is unlikely to have been the original
information molecule, it's even unlikely that the first living things had an
information carrier except their own structure. The first molecules were
likely to have been rybozymes, which are extremely simple and very stable.
They didn't all need to come into simultaneous being either.
>
> When I consider that 10 billion years were used to evolve the material
> universe, I wonder how in 3.5 billion years life including man could
> evolve? It strikes me that there is a learning curve here.
Just remember the big jumps.
Organic molecules - self reproducing molecules
Self reproducers - isolated (membrane contained)
Membrane containers - organised containers (bacteria)
bacteria - bacterial colonies
bacterial colonies - Eukaryotic cells
Eukaryotic cells - multicellular organisms
All that changes between the first multicellular organisms and mammals are
some changes to major layout (dipoblasts to triploblasts) and a little
information change.
>
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs.
There's an area of the brain linked to it, it may have been beneficial at
one point and has not yet been sufficinetly detrimental to be fatal.
How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
At face they aren't, but they help bind human groups together, which is
advantageous.
rossum
<"©<:o(docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
>> <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> >> Christians.
>> >
>> >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
>actual
>> >beliefs are.
>> >
>> >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> >> evolution.
>> >
>> >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>>
>> 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>
>Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
Yes Holmes. See
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp
for what he said.
>
>> 2 The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and follow the Pope.
>
>A VERY close second are the Orthodox, who don't follow the Pope.
>
>The various protestant cults (including the Baptists) are a distant third,
>and may not even qualify as "Christians", since many of them endorse
>ordaining women as priests, ordaining practicing homosexuals as ministers,
>and have chopped out several books of the Bible so as to reduce the total
>number of books in their "bible" to only 66.
Hardly "VERY close second". According to
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity the Catholics
are top with 1,030,000,000 and the Eastern orthodox second with
240,000,000. It is better to check facts before going into print,
especially in a science based discussion group. Scientists have this
thing about facts and getting them correct.
>
>> 3 Therefore the majority of Christians do not have a problem with
>> evolution.
>
>Except your Point Number 1 is false.
You no doubt have evidence that the Pope has since retracted his
statement? Could you please post a reference to it.
>Besides, you never talked with the
>Pope about that, but instead tried to act as if YOU were the Pope.
No. I am not the pope, I have never claimed to be the pope and I have
never tried to act as if I was head of the Catholic Church.
>
>Protestant cultsts OFTEN do that, of course, which is why the Wacky World of
>Protestantism is often referred to as "The Land Of A Million Popes".
I am not, and have never been, a member of any Protestant church.
rossum
rossum
macaddicte...@attbi.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>Lani girl <"©<:o(docwÆ≤∞∞≤_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vl1jluk5ogr4v4g08...@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
>> > <"©<:o)docw®"°°"_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
>> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
>> > >> Christians.
>> > >
>> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
>> actual
>> > >beliefs are.
>> > >
>> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
>> > >> evolution.
>> > >
>> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
>> >
>> > 1 The Pope does not have a problem with evolution.
>>
>> Have you talked with the Pope about that, Watson?
>
>Actually the Church began to look more favorably on evolution in 1950
>(Humani Generis). We do not need to speak to the Pope to verify the
>first point- we have his speaches. The one to which the writer is
>referring is probably his 1996 speach to the Pontifical Academy of
>Science.
It is indeed.
rossum
Cyrakis
<snip>
>
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
> to be useful in survival.
I think the important factor that underlies what you mention above is
language. Once the early human ancestors began to develop an abstract
language to describe their world, they began to embark on a path of
evolving society and technology. Language allows us to preserve our
history, and the teaching of our ancestors. This is similar to the way
in which DNA preserves the biological lessons of our ancestors.
Language became an incredibly powerful survival tool for the early
hominids, because it allowed them to form complex social structures,
and organize effectively against their environment. This advantage
provided by language, enshrined the power of words and abstract
thought in early humans. They would have revered those who mastered
abstract forms of expression, creating a sort of feedback loop that
encouraged further such development.
Along these lines, I think it's interesting to note that in the book
of Genesis, god's primary task for Adam was to name everything in
creation.
>
> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
> hand.
The traits that you view as being counter to survival of the fittest,
are actually prevalent in all kinds of species. Particularily in
certain mamalian social species. I've seen video of an adult gazelle,
trying to fight a pack of hyenas in order to save it's offspring.
Taking on a pack of predators is clearly not increasing the survival
chances of the gazelle, so why does it make this self-sacrifice?
Frank J
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC), fn...@comcast.net (Frank J)
> wrote:
>
> >"Lani girl" <Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ipa69.9933$Ke2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> "Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:fm7ilu0cvtjvtb94g...@4ax.com...
> proves that
> >> > they have no evidence for creation.
> >>
> >> Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as the
> >
> >Tell that to Kenneth Miller and the thousands of other Christian
> >evolutionists. And while you're at it state your alternate testable
> >hypothesis. Maybe you can compare your list of peer-reviewed
> >publications.
> >
>
> One of the largest Christian organizations on earth, Roman
> Catholicism, does not deny evolution. A Roman Catholic school is
> where I was first told about the theory by a nun. I have known many
> priests, brothers and nuns. Not one of them has ever said anything
> negative about evolution. It was taken for granted as an established
> scientific theory.
>
>
professional evolutionists. Of course the merely science-literate
Christians who accept evolution number in the many millions.
Excelsior
wrote:
You are asking for a 'reasonable investigation' and 'discussion' about
a being (or race) which many here consider fictional and, therefore,
not something on which to spend much time.
Besides, the answer is simple. The qualities of any intelligent
designer must, of necessity, reflect the qualities of its intelligent
designer (which reflects its intelligent designer, which reflects its
intelligent designer...)
>
>Fortunately I thought about the questions of creations outside
>biblical considerations for years before finding these newsgroups. I
>can well understand the beauty and effort put into forming an
>understanding of the evolution of the universe and life. I have no
>need to defend a creed of any sort. But, I do have a need to explore
>possibilities of an intelligent design. I fail to see how this
>interest need defense, but many cry "proof, proof." How can there be
>any proofs when the very basic questions remain ill formed and a
>consensus on the how to describe such a function yet to be formed?
Then how about a single scrap of actual evidence which points toward
design (and 'I don't know how it could be unless it was designed' is
NOT evidence).
>
>I have been getting upset with the media this week, time after time
>they would ask their guest about Bush and the Iraq situation, "Has the
>president made his case?" I have seen no effort by the
>Administration to make its case. No one appeared before the
>congressional committee in its brief two day information meetings, no
>presidential speeches to the nation laying out a case. So, why was
>the media asking everyone that was interviewed, "Did the
>Administration make its case?"
>
>I feel the constant string of "prove it, prove it" are much the same.
>How can anyone prove anything without a serious effort to gather
>information, define terms, devise ways of testing. How can those that
>have found an answer ruling out intelligence, be upset with some that
>want to look?
Go ahead and look. Encourage those who support such things to spend
their time, money, effort researching rather than legislating or on
P/R. Suggest they submit for peer review in accepted journals instead
of house organs or the popular press. So far, it seems nobody wants to
actual do the work.
>
>It is interesting to wonder what would be an appropriate group to make
>such an effort. The established religions cannot for any answer that
>did not support their dogma would have to be compromised. Scientists
>that started using "god did it" to explain gaps in information, would
>be ostracized.
And unless they had some actual evidence for the stance, they should
be.
Forest Ghost
Lani girl wrote:
>
> "Forest Ghost" <fores...@hatpap.com> wrote in message
> news:3D59940C...@hatpap.com...
>
> > Hi Lani, welcome back. Now that I've got you here in talk.origins, I
> > feel it's fair game to ask you again- what evidence can you provide that
> > the book of Genesis is true?
>
> OK, for starters, the book of Genesis reports that God created Man "male and
> female", and that is indeed what science observes, even in our own day and
> age.
You responded! You do still love me! >mmmmwa< (big wet sloppy kiss)
But alas, you gave a poor answer. Every creation myth from every
culture has their local god/godess create humans as male and female.
Almost as if the storytellers were trying to explain the world they saw
around them. Think about it. If I'm making up a story to explain the
origins of mankind, why would I say "And on the third day, Jehovah made
woman, saw she was good, and stopped."
A baritone voice from the audience then asks, "But what about men? Who
created them?"
I, the storyteller, just laugh. "Fool! Since the holy story clearly
states that only women were created, men don't exist! They are only a
myth to test your faith!"
Do you see the problem here, and why that isn't proof?
If this is the only proof you have, I'm not very impressed. Why is your
story any more valid than the story that Odin made the first man and
woman from two trees he found growing on the beach? Why is your Hebrew
creation story right and the Norse wrong?
Care to try again? All you have to do is show compelling evidence for
Biblical creation and BAM!, you'll single handily destroy the hated
theory of evolution.
-Forest Ghost, awaiting round 2.
Dan Watts
>design
O.K. How about the fact that water is a very peculiar substance in that it is
less dense as a solid than a liquid? This keeps large bodies of water from
freezing solid.
Bobby D. Bryant
> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have
> willingly diet in defense of their beliefs.
Including political beliefs, and spiritual beliefs that are very
obviously wrong (such as the California UFO-suicide cult).
People have believed all manner of nonsense over the millenia;
that's hardly a reason for us to believe the same nonsense.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Excelsior
Just how is this evidence of design? The earth's crust is less dense
the the magma beneath allowing plates to drift and conveniently
providing solid ground. So?
Bobby D. Bryant
And the Designer had peculiar reasons for not wanting large bodies
of water to freeze solid, and had peculiarer reasons for not just
saying "Let there be large bodies of water that will not freeze
solid!", right?
Somehow I doubt that you reached the conclusion that the universe
is designed by observing that ice cubes float and contemplating the
implications.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> I see the same problem Tom. But try and get any discussion going
> to define what are the qualities a intelligent designer might
> have.
...
> It is interesting to wonder what would be an appropriate group to
> make such an effort.
The most obvious group would be the people who are peddling
intelligent design. But alas, they won't touch the question
because it could only mean trouble for their political agenda.
> I just bought Dembski's "Science and Evidence for Design in the
> universe.
Let us know if he tattles on who the designer is -- or even what
qualities he/she/they/it might have.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Thomas P.
wrote:
Professional evolutionists? I have no idea what you are talking
about. If you mean biologists, many of them are Christians.
>Of course the merely science-literate
>Christians who accept evolution number in the many millions.
So who is making all these attacks?
Dick
Thanks for an honest answer Mark. You have given a reasoned response.
I am getting tired of the troll attacks and are making a list to put
in the kill filter. Your answer would definitely not make you part of
such a list.
I believe the membrane question is more complicated than a soap
bubble. I became aware of the problem this year and am looking for
further studies. Also your 'jumps' are an interesting series, each
raises its own questions and does not begin to resolve the
'complexity' of the whole creation of the stem cell.
Your use of organic molecules capable of self reproductions is novel
to me. I think of carbon as an organic molecule.
How do you get the membrane as contained in pre life self reproducers
and what are the 'self reproducers'"
Your steps are new to me. Are they your ideas? Such steps are needed
to understand the move from organic carbon molecules to a fully
developed stem cell with the Dna system installed.
Interesting thoughts.
Dan Watts
>is designed by observing that ice cubes float and contemplating the
>implications.
Everyone is free to make up their own minds.
TomS
<ajfb5r$38t$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."
In particular, about "they".
Has anybody ever touched the question of *how many* intelligent
designers there have to be?
Anybody from the intelligent-design movement, that is.
I presume that it is a cardinal number greater than zero, in
their estimation. (I say cardinal number, rather than integer,
because it could be an infinite number, couldn't it?)
Tom S.
Dan Watts
What would be acceptable evidence of design?
If there can be no form of evidence that would be deemed acceptable, then there
is no utility in answering such a request for evidence.
TomS
<ajfai1$2pd$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."
>
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:38:01 -0600, Dan Watts wrote:
>
>>>Then how about a single scrap of actual evidence which points
>>>toward design
>>
>> O.K. How about the fact that water is a very peculiar substance
>> in that it is less dense as a solid than a liquid? This keeps
>> large bodies of water from freezing solid.
>
>And the Designer had peculiar reasons for not wanting large bodies
>of water to freeze solid, and had peculiarer reasons for not just
>saying "Let there be large bodies of water that will not freeze
>solid!", right?
This is a standard example of the bad reasoning behind an
argument from design.
As it continues, the "reason" for not wanting large bodies of
water not to freeze solid, is that then fish (and other aquatic
life) would be frozen, and die.
The simple problem is, as you point out, a purposeful agent
which has enough control to make ice float ... such an agent
does not need ice to float to keep fish from freezing. (As a
matter of fact, there are some species of fish with a kind of
anti-freeze that protects them. And, anyway, one of the reasons
that freezing kills life is that the water in cells expands on
freezing, bursting the cells; and thus the reason for expansion
of ice is also part of the cause of the problem. Of course,
every "solution" in nature is a solution to a "problem" in
nature. A designer of nature solves only those problems which
are posed by another designer.)
>
>Somehow I doubt that you reached the conclusion that the universe
>is designed by observing that ice cubes float and contemplating the
>implications.
Tom S.
Bill Felton
"Dan Watts" <wdan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020815092606...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> It appears to me that I must ask a question concerning evidence of design.
>
> What would be acceptable evidence of design?
A designer, a mechanism, and a tracable path from designer, thru
execution, to designed item.
That would certainly do the job.
> If there can be no form of evidence that would be deemed acceptable, then
there
> is no utility in answering such a request for evidence.
Yup.
And it is generally futile to try to infer design, let alone design by
"person or persons unknown" from things one happens to encounter.
The best we can do, it appears, is to infer design based on similarities
to items verified to be designed by the route given above. And
even then we only have inference to a designer like unto the designers
we have verified.
Leaves the 'argument from design' out of the running in any attempt to
prove God -- or special creation.
Bill
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe"
Richard Lupoff
Mark Whickman
>
> Thanks for an honest answer Mark. You have given a reasoned response.
> I am getting tired of the troll attacks and are making a list to put
> in the kill filter. Your answer would definitely not make you part of
> such a list.
>
> I believe the membrane question is more complicated than a soap
> bubble.
It isn't, really. I spent about 40 hours of lectures on the mitochondrial
membrane alone, but almost everything was on the accessory proteins embedded
into it, the basic structure is fairly simple (fatty acid chains can vary
dependant on the ambient temperature to stop fracture of crystalisation).
I became aware of the problem this year and am looking for
> further studies. Also your 'jumps' are an interesting series, each
> raises its own questions and does not begin to resolve the
> 'complexity' of the whole creation of the stem cell.
>
> Your use of organic molecules capable of self reproductions is novel
> to me. I think of carbon as an organic molecule.
Carbon is an element. When in a compound that is not graphite, diamond or
carbon dioxide it is labelled as organic. Given the complexity of organic
molecules that can exist without life it is little to infer that it is
possible that a compound existed that was capable of duplicating itself. The
first molecule that could remotely be called living was likely to have been
a ribozyme, very primitive precursors to both enzymes and nuclear (as in
cell nucleus) matter.
>
> How do you get the membrane as contained in pre life self reproducers
> and what are the 'self reproducers'"
Could you rephrase the question please.
>
> Your steps are new to me. Are they your ideas?
Nope, they are near enough dogma in one form or other in biochemistry.
Dick
<mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>Just remember the big jumps.
>
>Organic molecules - self reproducing molecules
>Self reproducers - isolated (membrane contained)
>Membrane containers - organised containers (bacteria)
>bacteria - bacterial colonies
>bacterial colonies - Eukaryotic cells
>Eukaryotic cells - multicellular organisms
>
>All that changes between the first multicellular organisms and mammals are
>some changes to major layout (dipoblasts to triploblasts) and a little
>information change.
Funny thing about filling in the dots, the more dots, the greater the
complexity and the lower the probability that the universe could have
proceeded by trial and error.
"Cut and Try" becomes more feasible as the needed series of
permutations increases. Cut and Try, of course, is close to
intelligent design.
The more science learns, the more it finds is left to learn. The more
mystery the more likely there is intelligence. Mystery says we have
found patterns for which we have no answer yet. But the accumulation
of mysteries plus the probability of what we do know will point more
and more to "intent" in the creation.
Richard S. Norman
Acceptable evidence of design would be something similar to acceptable
evidence for evolution:
1) A clear statement of the mechanism(s) behind the theory
2) A clear statement of a plausible sequence of steps using that
mechanism that would lead to the current status of life on earth
3) Clear evidence, verifiable by observation or experimentation by
independent and objective observers that both the mechanism is, in
fact, present and functional and that a significant number of the
predicted steps are detectable.
4) Absence of any other predictive theory with similar predictive
power and consistency with the observed data.
That would mean evidence of the "planner" or "planning agency" or of
plans, evidence of a mechanism by which the plans are implemented into
reality, and some signs of the planning activity. Explanations based
immediately or ultimately on faith or reference to scripture is not
acceptable; the evidence must be objective repeatable measurements
that could be seen by both believers and non-believers.
It is not necessary to produce evidence for every single step from the
concept of a plan to the finished world, just as evolution does not
have such evidence for every step. However, there is must be a
plausible scheme and at every step where evidence is available, the
evidence must confirms the notion, just as is the case with evolution.
The argument of "intelligent design" tries to rely on item 4 alone by
arguing that evolution (or evolution alone) is not capable of
producing the results. You are right to demand something else, a
plausible, self-consistent and verifiable mechanism and evidence for
its operation.
However a personal appearance by God (or by our friends from outer
space) with a sworn and notarized statement saying "we really did do
it" would supplant all of the above.
Jon Fleming
Watts) wrote:
Observation of a designer in action would certainly be enough.
Perhaps Dembski's work (so far fatally flawed) will lead someday to a
proof that what we observe is impossible without design, but that
seems unlikely; likely the best he'll ever do is prove that design is
probable (he hasn't done that yet).
All the "evidence for design" that I've seen thus far (including what
you've posted) boils down to "it works, therefore it was designed"
(often with a fillip of "and I can't imagine how it could have arisen
without design"). That's not even close to good enough.
Dick
wrote:
>Dick <di...@christophers.net> wrote in message news:<f1oklucdu3j7ero7o...@4ax.com>...
>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> At the human level many things strike me as needing much more
>> explanations: Why, over the history of man has their been such a
>> craving for a spiritual belief. So strong that people have willingly
>> diet in defense of their beliefs. How do the creative talents and
>> emotions fit into a test for survival of the "fittest." Art, music
>> composition, a sense of beauty, love (not lust), none of these human
>> (in some cases also seen in other forms of life) qualities would seem
>> to be useful in survival.
>
>I think the important factor that underlies what you mention above is
>language. Once the early human ancestors began to develop an abstract
>language to describe their world, they began to embark on a path of
>evolving society and technology. Language allows us to preserve our
>history, and the teaching of our ancestors. This is similar to the way
>in which DNA preserves the biological lessons of our ancestors.
>
>Language became an incredibly powerful survival tool for the early
>hominids, because it allowed them to form complex social structures,
>and organize effectively against their environment. This advantage
>provided by language, enshrined the power of words and abstract
>thought in early humans. They would have revered those who mastered
>abstract forms of expression, creating a sort of feedback loop that
>encouraged further such development.
>
I guess you need to define language, bees have complex social
relations without formal language, it seems to be contained in the
Dna.
Language does make social organization possible, but cultural ideas
and even difference in language promotes separation. It seems to me
god threw in languages to build walls between cultures in the earlier
times. It is interesting that today when people around the world are
more involved with each other and finding many ways to cooperate the
number of dominant languages is diminishing. English appears to be a
second language for larger and larger numbers of cultures.
Reverence for abstract thought is a novel thought to me. It seems
counterintuitive at one level. I live in a world of abstract thought
and find most people live in a more practical world. I think about
creation as others think about kids or job. I wonder if people were
just happy to have someone willing to interface with the gods for pay
and let the rest live their lives of procreation, recreation and
making a living?
>Along these lines, I think it's interesting to note that in the book
>of Genesis, god's primary task for Adam was to name everything in
>creation.
>
But then there was the Tower of Babel, so Adam's efforts were diluted
by new names from the new cultures, not to mention regional difference
in critters to be named.
>>
>> The questions are so many and cover so many aspects of living, I find
>> it hard to understand how the interest in them can be rejected out of
>> hand.
>
>The traits that you view as being counter to survival of the fittest,
>are actually prevalent in all kinds of species. Particularily in
>certain mamalian social species. I've seen video of an adult gazelle,
>trying to fight a pack of hyenas in order to save it's offspring.
>Taking on a pack of predators is clearly not increasing the survival
>chances of the gazelle, so why does it make this self-sacrifice?
Oh, how well I understand what you are saying. I live with three
dogs. They are scary sometimes in their ability to do things
together. Put down a dish to be licked and each knows where to put
his head. They seem to have a set search pattern to lick assuring
everyone a chance to hit a good spot. They also have figured how to
share sleeping with me. This pattern has evolved as the dogs grew
from one to 3. No fighting, no barking, just one night a new ritual
that appears to have satisfied all.
Dick
I can understand you not wanting to believe the same nonsense, but
what do you put in its place? Are you absent the same needs as all
our ancestors? How do you explain the apparent need for beliefs and
explanations about life?
Mark Whickman
A God would not need to cut and try, a naturalistic system would.
Also humans have a bad habit of spotting patterns where none exist.
Dick
I doubt that any evidence would be more than an additional target for
attack. If I mention the probability of there being such a complex
organization as has resulted in life as we know it, you probably would
say the math was wrong.
If you don't see or feel a need for an answer, why get involved in a
discussion you will automatically reject? No one can provide 'proof'
to someone that has already made up their minds. "Don't bother me
with the facts, my mind is made up!" I don't remember when or where I
first heard this, but it is true isn't it? My mind is made up to look
for ideas about creation, and I tend to tune out to counter arguments
and get absolutely furious about procedural challenges.
Dick
Actually, the book turns out to be a collection of three papers taking
a coordinated approach to creative design. Dembski is first and
introduces his logical analysis parameters, primary one being
complexity, and second pattern. Not his words, but what I understood.
The question seems to be that given all the precise narrowly assigned
values to such things as the value of gravity, or the mass of an
electron for their to have been a life supporting universe, the
complexity and probability are astronomical.
Smolin suggests the chances of such a world are made better by saying
that there are more than one universe and he proceeds to suggest that
"Black Holes" are touching a boundary of other possible universes and
appear as a "Singularity" which in turn expands into the now real
universe. Once a new universe has the right variables it can create
new star systems and if enough are created black holes will appear.
When more than one black hole is created then the process expands
exponentially thus providing the added throw of the dice to finally
create one universe with the life capable variables.
I had a hard time with Dembski part of the book, the second paper
reads easier and is putting some flesh on Dembski's logical terms.
Derek Stevenson
You might want to take a good long look at how you think about these
things.
Above (and below) you attribute the existence of more than one language to
divine intervention.
But then you note that increasing contact and interaction between peoples
and cultures is leading to a reduction in the number of living languages,
and the rise of English as a sort of universal language. The more people
interact with each other, in other words, the more likely they are to
converge on a single common language.
That's a good observation. But try looking at this from a couple of
different perspectives.
Consider, for example, what happened to English as English-speaking people
spread out through the world over the last few centuries, *before* mass
communications and round-the-world travel. (Or just consider what happened
to English as it spread out through *England*.) Did the language remain the
same in all of these far-flung places, or are there subtle (and
not-so-subtle) differences between the way it's spoken in London, New York,
Sydney and Port of Spain?
Or take the current trend of convergence on English, and roll back the
clock. You've already noted what contact between cultures does with respect
to language; what effect does *isolation* have?
Given that, is it possible that there is *another* explanation for the
multiplicity of human languages?
[snip]
> >Along these lines, I think it's interesting to note that in the book
> >of Genesis, god's primary task for Adam was to name everything in
> >creation.
> >
> But then there was the Tower of Babel, so Adam's efforts were diluted
> by new names from the new cultures, not to mention regional difference
> in critters to be named.
[snip]
Derek Stevenson
news:20020815092606...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> It appears to me that I must ask a question concerning evidence of
You need to provide *positive* evidence of design. "I can't think of any
other explanation for this, so it must be due to design," is not positive
evidence, except of your own limitations.
socode
: How do you explain the apparent need for beliefs and
: explanations about life?
The apparent need doesn't show that such a need is
warranted or even satisfiable. No explanation is
necessary.
socode
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Mark Whickman
><mark.w...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Just remember the big jumps.
>>
>>Organic molecules - self reproducing molecules
>>Self reproducers - isolated (membrane contained)
>>Membrane containers - organised containers (bacteria)
>>bacteria - bacterial colonies
>>bacterial colonies - Eukaryotic cells
>>Eukaryotic cells - multicellular organisms
>>
>>All that changes between the first multicellular organisms and mammals are
>>some changes to major layout (dipoblasts to triploblasts) and a little
>>information change.
>
>Funny thing about filling in the dots, the more dots, the greater the
>complexity and the lower the probability that the universe could have
>proceeded by trial and error.
>
>"Cut and Try" becomes more feasible as the needed series of
>permutations increases. Cut and Try, of course, is close to
>intelligent design.
Perhaps. However, "Cut and Try" _is_ evolution.
<snip>
Mark VandeWettering
> It appears to me that I must ask a question concerning evidence of design.
>
> What would be acceptable evidence of design?
Scientific evidence would be acceptable.
> If there can be no form of evidence that would be deemed acceptable,
> then there is no utility in answering such a request for evidence.
That's okay. I suspect there is no utility in asking for such from
creationists.
Mark
Sverker Johansson
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:14:53 +0000 (UTC), wdan...@aol.com (Dan
> Watts) wrote:
>
> >It appears to me that I must ask a question concerning evidence of design.
> >
> >What would be acceptable evidence of design?
> >
> >If there can be no form of evidence that would be deemed acceptable, then there
> >is no utility in answering such a request for evidence.
>
> Acceptable evidence of design would be something similar to acceptable
> evidence for evolution:
>
> 1) A clear statement of the mechanism(s) behind the theory
> 2) A clear statement of a plausible sequence of steps using that
> mechanism that would lead to the current status of life on earth
> 3) Clear evidence, verifiable by observation or experimentation by
> independent and objective observers that both the mechanism is, in
> fact, present and functional and that a significant number of the
> predicted steps are detectable.
> 4) Absence of any other predictive theory with similar predictive
> power and consistency with the observed data.
5) Predictive power from design theory. I have yet to see
an argument from design that isn't post-hoc. (This can be read
into your point 3, but I want to have it more explicit that
post-hoc explanations of an observed sequence of events won't do.)
6) Evidence of design that cannot be explained by anthropic
considerations.
> That would mean evidence of the "planner" or "planning agency" or of
> plans, evidence of a mechanism by which the plans are implemented into
> reality, and some signs of the planning activity. Explanations based
> immediately or ultimately on faith or reference to scripture is not
> acceptable; the evidence must be objective repeatable measurements
> that could be seen by both believers and non-believers.
>
> It is not necessary to produce evidence for every single step from the
> concept of a plan to the finished world, just as evolution does not
> have such evidence for every step. However, there is must be a
> plausible scheme and at every step where evidence is available, the
> evidence must confirms the notion, just as is the case with evolution.
>
> The argument of "intelligent design" tries to rely on item 4 alone by
> arguing that evolution (or evolution alone) is not capable of
> producing the results. You are right to demand something else, a
> plausible, self-consistent and verifiable mechanism and evidence for
> its operation.
Even success at all the steps above would not establish the
existence of any gods, much less Dan's specific god.
Sufficiently powerful space aliens cannot be excluded by
anything short of:
> However a personal appearance by God (or by our friends from outer
> space) with a sworn and notarized statement saying "we really did do
> it" would supplant all of the above.
Having all the stars of the Milky Way rearranged to spell out
the book of Genesis, in dot-matrix letters a kiloparsec tall,
would be sufficient to make me join a church. Either Jehovah
exists, or somebody wants me to think so, somebody with enough
power to make it prudent to obey.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Sverker Johansson
> "Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:du0jlu8op9ofnp5q5...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC), "Lani girl"
> > <"©<:o)docw®²°°²_is_a_...@hotmail.com>"@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dunno" <muen...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2002081312...@hushmail.com...
> > >> Roughly half of the evolution supporters on this forum are
> > >> Christians.
> > >
> > >Mere ASSUMPTION on your part. You have no way of proving what their
> actual
> > >beliefs are.
> > >
> > >> Christians generally don't have a problem with
> > >> evolution.
> > >
> > >Broad brush ASSUMPTION about people you have never met or talked with.
> >
> > You snipped your own broad-brush assumption:
> >
> > "Just as the fact that Evolutionists spend so much time attacking
> > Christianity just proves that they have no evidence for Evolution as
> > the origin of life"
>
> made earlier by the Christian-hater, and simply turned it around on you
> Atheists.
If you look at creationist publications, the bulk of them are
attacks on mainstream science with little if any time spent on
their own ideas.
If you look at publications on evolutionary biology or cosmology,
the bulk of them are spent on their own science, with little if
any time spent on attacking creationists.
PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi is a large
and publicly available literature database covering basically all
mainstream scientific publications in the life sciences.
Searching with the keyword 'evolution' produces 100,000+ hits.
Searching with the keyword 'creationism' produces 35 hits, only
a handful of which are actual attacks on creationism.
Thus 0.035% of articles on evolution even mention creationism.
Going instead to a prominent creationism website, a search of
http://www.icr.org reveals that out of a total of 2042 searchable
documents, it reports 1410 (about 70%) hits with keyword 'evolution'.
A quick glance at the first page shows that the majority of these
attack evolution.
So the original statement about time spent is well supported by
the available evidence, whereas your reversed statement is
simply false.
False statements from a creationist don't really surprise
me, but they do bother me.
Michael Painter
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ajg9o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 04:25:51 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <ajfb5r$38t$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Bobby stated..."
>
>
> Has anybody ever touched the question of *how many* intelligent
> designers there have to be?
>
> Anybody from the intelligent-design movement, that is.
>
> I presume that it is a cardinal number greater than zero, in
> their estimation. (I say cardinal number, rather than integer,
> because it could be an infinite number, couldn't it?)
>
about normal curves for intelligence and a comment that the work of one of
the really stupid ones is on display to show new ID's what not to do.
Probably just a coincidence that the inhabitants of that universe look and
sound like us.