Creationist arguments

[Mark Buchanan]

Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence

Last section of the article:

"As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its true s

trength."

Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.

Mark

[prawnster]

On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>

> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...

>
> Last section of the article:
>
> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its true

s
>
> trength."
>
> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
> Mark

Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
evolution, con-man style, regardless of how well any layman might
understand his prose.

Also, Venema fails to consider that evolution is built upon very
simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,
and that any theory, no matter how internally consistent, rigorous,
baroque, and/or involuted in its details, based on fantasy has a
foundation weaker than air. If one person, namely prawnster, points
out the phanastical, imaginary "foundation" of Darwinism, the bulbous
top-heavy structure fails.

So Venema is incorrect; one need not go point by point with Darwinists
nor accept any of their premises to destroy the faux-rationality of
the hypothesis known as evolution.

[Craig Franck]

On 4/6/2012 7:26 PM, prawnster wrote:

[...]

> Also, Venema fails to consider that evolution is built upon very
> simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,
> and that any theory, no matter how internally consistent, rigorous,
> baroque, and/or involuted in its details, based on fantasy has a
> foundation weaker than air.

Actually, evolution just has to perform better than creationism
to be a more rational alternative.

Craig

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Pity he elects to describe anti-evolutionary materials as "Christian" when
his sentence quoted above simply echoes the statement back in 1996 by Pope
John Paul II - leader of the world's largest Christian denominations with 1
billion members - that

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of [Pius XII's]
encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as
more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had
progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a
series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in
the results of these independent studies-which was neither planned nor
sought-constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

[John Harshman]

OK, I'll bite. What "phantastical" assumptions? Feel free to point them
out, keeping in mind that naked assertion doesn't really count as
pointing anything out.

[Steven L.]

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:c2eefef1-3822-4431...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:

OK, I'll listen: What are the "fantastical" and "imaginary" elements of
Darwinism?





-- Steven L.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>>
>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...
>>
>> Last section of the article:
>>
>> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does
>not do justice to its true strength."

>> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.

>Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
>evolution

It's not an illusion, but you're welcome to reject evidence
you dislike or don't understand, provided you understand
that rejecting evidence because you dislike the conclusions
doesn't say anything good about your intellectual honesty.

>Also, Venema fails to consider that evolution is built upon very
>simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,

OK, please state them. Thanks.

>and that any theory, no matter how internally consistent, rigorous,
>baroque, and/or involuted in its details, based on fantasy has a
>foundation weaker than air. If one person, namely prawnster, points
>out the phanastical, imaginary "foundation" of Darwinism, the bulbous
>top-heavy structure fails.

OK, please point them out. Thanks.
--

Bob C.

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

[Frank J]

This non-Christian also hates it when anti-evolution activism in any form is described as "Christian." Which it routinely is, ironically both anti-evolutionists and their critics alike carelessly do that. It's especially absurd when one is reminded that Ben Stein, Michael Medved, David Klinghoffer (all Jewish), Harun Yahya (Muslim) and David Berlinski (agnostic) are among the most prominent anti-evolution activists.

> when
> his sentence quoted above simply echoes the statement back in 1996 by Pope
> John Paul II - leader of the world's largest Christian denominations with 1
> billion members - that
>
> "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of [Pius XII's]
> encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as
> more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had
> progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a
> series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in
> the results of these independent studies-which was neither planned nor
> sought-constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

At least half a century ago anti-evolution activists realized that they will never achieve *convergence* on evidence, even *with* the outcome planned and sought in advance (cherry picking evidence, quote-mining, defining terms to suit the argument, etc.). So a once honest, if misguided, belief system crossed the line into full-blown pseudoscience. Very sad, and made even sadder when critics criticize the *belief* of those who have been scammed instead of the *actions* of those scamming them.

[chris thompson]

On Apr 6, 7:26 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...
>
> > Last section of the article:
>
> > "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its tr

ue
>
>  s
>
>
>
> > trength."
>
> > Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
> > Mark
>
> Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
> evolution, con-man style, regardless of how well any layman might
> understand his prose.

Would you care to address the evidence presented here:

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jhered/freepdf/79-225.pdf

It seems to show phenotypic change closely connected to allelic
change.

or are you just going to keep bleating like a sheep, "no evidence
waaaaah! no evidence waaaaahhhhhhhh!" If so, please go home to your
mommy.


Chris

[Frank J]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:51:08 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:26 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
> >
> > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...
> >
> > > Last section of the article:
> >
> > > "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its

tr
>
> ue
> >
> >  s
> >
> >
> >
> > > trength."
> >
> > > Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
> >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
> > evolution, con-man style, regardless of how well any layman might
> > understand his prose.
>
> Would you care to address the evidence presented here:
>
> http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jhered/freepdf/79-225.pdf
>
> It seems to show phenotypic change closely connected to allelic
> change.
>
> or are you just going to keep bleating like a sheep, "no evidence
> waaaaah! no evidence waaaaahhhhhhhh!" If so, please go home to your
> mommy.

But it's not. Rather it's:

"Ooh, more evidence to take out of context to peddle incredulity to unsuspecting new readers. Another opportunity to evade questions about my own 'theory', not that bait-taking 'Darwinists' ever ask, other than those party-poopers Frank J and TomS. If 'Darwinists" don't call me on my double standard, few readers will notice."

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
>
>Last section of the article:
>
>"As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not
>rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from
>multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing
>one another.

This would certainly be true with regard to the "relative change in
frequency of EXISTING biological characteristics." Darwin's
observations of the effects of differential survival and differential
reproduction (that is, natural selection) explains this and little
more. None of the other "biological" disciplines explains exactly
how biological novelty arises or develops to maturity.

Darwin conjectured that minor beneficial changes were probable (false)
and that they could accumulate progressively leading to
transformational change (never been observed). He had no idea how
this would work since it was his understanding that the cell was
merely a blob of protoplasm. In this sense all of these disciplines
(including neoDarwinian Theory) are equally and consistently silent
about the origin of biological novelty.

Darwin knew that the fossil record disproved his theory. Gould
agreed.

The long ages on Earth necessary for neoDarwinian processes to be
considered even possible depended upon a number of metaphysical claims
about geoHistory which are now known to be false:

(a.) geological processes occuring now explain the all (or most) past
processes.
(b.) that newer stratigraphic layers "always" superpose older ones.
(c.) fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable
order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances.

All of these have been falsified and are widely known NOT to be
universally true. Like "stasis" of the fossil record the falsity of
(a.) - (c.) are the dirtly little secrets of paleogeology and
paleostratigraphy.

>One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find
>frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in
>favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them
>individually.

I have run several challenges asking for the broad based evidence for
the emergence of biological novelty and its transformation to
maturity, but no one can seem to find any.

The claim of mountains of evidence of evidence is urban legend (and
nonsense).

>This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution,
>as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental
>details.

Yet it is not only NOT misleading it is exactly true. Hume, Popper
and others showed that level of evidence is NOT a measure of the
degree of probability that any universal-like theory is true.
Surprisingly this is exactly how secular scientists interprets level
of evidence.

However, it is true that a single falsifying observation is logically
capable of showing that a theory is definitively false. Stasis of the
fossil record and Irreducibly Complex biological systems falsity
neoDarwinian Theory.

> In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data
>from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail
>scientifically unless it addresses that vast array.

This is nonsense. I have repeatedly asked for even a single peer
reviewed report producing observable evidence of biological
transformational change. Since 1998 not one atheist has been able to
produce including Harshman, Elsberry, Forrest, Okimoto, Lethe,
Theobold, et al.

>As such, Christian
>anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge
>to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does
>not do justice to its true strength."

Nonsense. Darwin admitted in 1859 that the fossil record (stasis and
sudden appearance) caused his theory significant trouble. In 1972
Gould agreed. In 1996 Behe identified two biological systems
(bacterial flagellum and clotting cascade) that were irreducibly
complex and could not be created by successive, purely naturalistic
change. These falsify neoDarwinian theory.

Genetics has yet to find an observable mechanism for adding new
information progressively and coherently into a highly complex code.
All the experiments to date especially Lenski's have not produced a
single example of the emergence of novelty and its development to
maturity.

>
>Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly
>for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
>Mark

What evidence? I've practically begged the atheists to produce it,
but it has never been forth coming. The evidence is virtually non
existent.


Regards,
T Pagano

[Friar Broccoli]

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bdc4712e173c8a20

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

[Mike L]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:47:31 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
[...]

>
>The long ages on Earth necessary for neoDarwinian processes to be
>considered even possible depended upon a number of metaphysical claims
>about geoHistory which are now known to be false:
>
>(a.) geological processes occuring now explain the all (or most) past
>processes.
>(b.) that newer stratigraphic layers "always" superpose older ones.
>(c.) fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable
>order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances.
>
>All of these have been falsified and are widely known NOT to be
>universally true. Like "stasis" of the fossil record the falsity of
>(a.) - (c.) are the dirtly little secrets of paleogeology and
>paleostratigraphy.

Widely known secrets, eh? Neat.
[...]

--
Mike.

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
> <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>>
>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
>>
>> Last section of the article:
>>
>> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not
>> rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from
>> multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing
>> one another.
>
> This would certainly be true with regard to the "relative change in
> frequency of EXISTING biological characteristics." Darwin's
> observations of the effects of differential survival and differential
> reproduction (that is, natural selection) explains this and little
> more. None of the other "biological" disciplines explains exactly
> how biological novelty arises or develops to maturity.

Weasel word: "exactly". Many disciplines bear on the explanation. Other
weasel word: "how". Some disciplines bear on whether it does happen (it
does) but don't tell us much about how. Tony is nothing if not a master
of weasel word insertion.

> Darwin conjectured that minor beneficial changes were probable (false)
> and that they could accumulate progressively leading to
> transformational change (never been observed). He had no idea how
> this would work since it was his understanding that the cell was
> merely a blob of protoplasm. In this sense all of these disciplines
> (including neoDarwinian Theory) are equally and consistently silent
> about the origin of biological novelty.

Nothing true there.

> Darwin knew that the fossil record disproved his theory. Gould
> agreed.

Neither claim is true.

> The long ages on Earth necessary for neoDarwinian processes to be
> considered even possible depended upon a number of metaphysical claims
> about geoHistory which are now known to be false:
>
> (a.) geological processes occuring now explain the all (or most) past
> processes.

How is that known to be false? What processes not now occurring are
necessary to explain the past?

> (b.) that newer stratigraphic layers "always" superpose older ones.

Nope, not "always". Just usually. And we know why the exceptions happen.

> (c.) fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable
> order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances.

And they do. Why not?

> All of these have been falsified and are widely known NOT to be
> universally true. Like "stasis" of the fossil record the falsity of
> (a.) - (c.) are the dirtly little secrets of paleogeology and
> paleostratigraphy.

Here Tony's weasel words are "always" and "universally". Apparently even
one exception makes a rule useless in Tony's world.

>> One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find
>> frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in
>> favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them
>> individually.
>
> I have run several challenges asking for the broad based evidence for
> the emergence of biological novelty and its transformation to
> maturity, but no one can seem to find any.

I believe I have mentioned several, which you consistently ignore.
Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. My paper on paleognaths is an
example of common descent that encompasses transformational change.

> The claim of mountains of evidence of evidence is urban legend (and
> nonsense).

In other words, the blind man refuses to see the elephant.

>> This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution,
>> as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental
>> details.
>
> Yet it is not only NOT misleading it is exactly true. Hume, Popper
> and others showed that level of evidence is NOT a measure of the
> degree of probability that any universal-like theory is true.
> Surprisingly this is exactly how secular scientists interprets level
> of evidence.
>
> However, it is true that a single falsifying observation is logically
> capable of showing that a theory is definitively false. Stasis of the
> fossil record and Irreducibly Complex biological systems falsity
> neoDarwinian Theory.

Only if you misunderstand all three. But go ahead. Show how that works.

>> In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data
>>from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail
>> scientifically unless it addresses that vast array.
>
> This is nonsense. I have repeatedly asked for even a single peer
> reviewed report producing observable evidence of biological
> transformational change. Since 1998 not one atheist has been able to
> produce including Harshman, Elsberry, Forrest, Okimoto, Lethe,
> Theobold, et al.

I have presented several such papers to you. But let's pick one that you
have conveniently forgotten all about: Harshman, J., E. L. Braun, M. J.
Braun, C. J. Huddleston, R. C. K. Bowie, J. L. Chojnowski, S. J.
Hackett, K.-L. Han, R. T. Kimball, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. S.
Moore, S. Reddy, F. H. Sheldon, D. W. Steadman, S. J. Steppan, C. C.
Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105:13462-13467. Does that jog your memory at all?

>> As such, Christian
>> anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge
>> to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does
>> not do justice to its true strength."
>
> Nonsense. Darwin admitted in 1859 that the fossil record (stasis and
> sudden appearance) caused his theory significant trouble.

....as a rhetorical device in preface to his explanation of the phenomenon.

> In 1972
> Gould agreed.

Indeed he did not.

> In 1996 Behe identified two biological systems
> (bacterial flagellum and clotting cascade) that were irreducibly
> complex and could not be created by successive, purely naturalistic
> change.

Behe himself admitted that IC systems could be created by naturalistic
change. He just thought it was unlikely. He was wrong even about that,
since he assumed a silly mode of evolution, i.e. the sequential addition
of invariant parts. But evolution doesn't work that way.

> These falsify neoDarwinian theory.

Obviously they don't, since they aren't actually true.

> Genetics has yet to find an observable mechanism for adding new
> information progressively and coherently into a highly complex code.

Please define "information" so we can look for examples. And in fact any
definition will not work for you, since evolution at the molecular level
is entirely reversible; if you agree that information can be lost by
mutation, it follows from reversibility that it can also be gained.

> All the experiments to date especially Lenski's have not produced a
> single example of the emergence of novelty and its development to
> maturity.

Hard to tell since you won't tell us what you would accept as novelty or
as maturity.

>> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly
>> for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.

> What evidence? I've practically begged the atheists to produce it,
> but it has never been forth coming. The evidence is virtually non
> existent.

As usual, when you emerge from retirement you have forgotten everything
that happened before. Start with Harshman et al. 2008, or perhaps with
Archaeopteyx. But no plagiarism this time.

[jillery]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:00:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bdc4712e173c8a20


Run, Tony, run.

[Nathan Hood]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:47:31 -0400, T Pagano wrote:

> In 1996 Behe identified two biological systems (bacterial
> flagellum and clotting cascade) that were irreducibly complex and could
> not be created by successive, purely naturalistic change. These falsify
> neoDarwinian theory.

I thought I'd take a look at this small section of your post to see if the
rest of it was likely to be worthy of examination.

A simple Google search provided scholarly articles explaining
how these were not irreducibly complex, some addressing Behe directly.
Either you have no interest in an honest debate otherwise you would have
found these yourself, or you have no interest in an honest debate and
were aware of them but decided to hope the gullible readers would not
check for themselves.

Therefore, sir, are are a bounder and a cad!

Nathan Hood

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

T Pagano wrote:

[...]

> The claim of mountains of evidence of evidence is urban legend
> (and nonsense).

> What evidence? I've practically begged the atheists to produce it,
> but it has never been forth coming. The evidence is virtually non
> existent.

So what do you think about Pope John Paul's statement that "The convergence

in
the results of these independent studies-which was neither planned nor
sought-constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

?

Do you reckon he imagined this evidence or was he some sort of idiot who
bought the urban legend and nonsense?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 06:33:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fc...@verizon.net>:

Not entirely true; two days ago I asked him/her/it quite
politely to support his/her/its assertions:

[quote]

>...evolution is built upon very

>simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,

OK, please state them. Thanks.

>If one person, namely prawnster, points
>out the phanastical, imaginary "foundation" of Darwinism, the bulbous
>top-heavy structure fails.

OK, please point them out. Thanks.

[end quote]

So far, silence; the same quality of silence which follows
requests to ID proponents to define objective criteria by
which the presence of design can be evaluated. But I fully
expect further bouts of handwaving, tapdancing, goalpost
shifting and ad hominem from both sorts, all intended to
obscure the fact that the only argument they have reduces to
"I don't like it, so it's wrong!".

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 3:47:31 PM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
> <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
> >
> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
> >
> >Last section of the article:
> >
> >"As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not
> >rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from
> >multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing
> >one another.
>
> This would certainly be true with regard to the "relative change in
> frequency of EXISTING biological characteristics."

All evolutionary change involves changes in EXISTING biological characteristics.
No evolutionary change ever involves changes in non-existing biological
characteristics. Which is why bird's wings, human hands, bat's wings, tiger's claws,
and horse's hooves are all modifications of pre-existing structures
rather than the magical poofing into existence of novel structures.

> Darwin's
> observations of the effects of differential survival and differential
> reproduction (that is, natural selection) explains this and little
> more.


> None of the other "biological" disciplines explains exactly
> how biological novelty arises or develops to maturity.

Biological 'novelty' is a bastardization of what really happens: modification
of existing molecules and structures by mutation. Mutation can
produce large changes quickly (e.g., achondroplastic dwarfism or neotony) or
small changes that get incrementally accumulated (human cranial capacity,
with the exception of creationists).

> Darwin conjectured that minor beneficial changes were probable (false)

Take height for example. In your non-Darwinian world, there can only
be major changes in height with nothing in between a mouse and an
elephant. There cannot be genetic variation that produces individuals with
quantitative variance in genetic traits, from taller than average through
average to smaller than average. That is because all possible intermediates
are unfit.

> and that they could accumulate progressively leading to
> transformational change (never been observed).

Been observed by the Grants. As well as a number of other studies (anole leg
length, English sparrow size and weight related to climate in the U.S). The
transformation by neoteny in fully-aquatic salamanders can be due to
changes by a single mutation.

> He had no idea how
> this would work since it was his understanding that the cell was
> merely a blob of protoplasm. In this sense all of these disciplines
> (including neoDarwinian Theory) are equally and consistently silent
> about the origin of biological novelty.
>
> Darwin knew that the fossil record disproved his theory. Gould
> agreed.

Darwin knew that the fossil record had gaps due to the fact that
not every organism that ever lived being fossilized. You apparently
think otherwise. Why? Are you that stupid?

> The long ages on Earth necessary for neoDarwinian processes to be
> considered even possible depended upon a number of metaphysical claims
> about geoHistory which are now known to be false:
>
> (a.) geological processes occuring now explain the all (or most) past
> processes.

What geological processes that have occurred in the past are different from
those in the present (excluding those that occurred very early in earth
history before there was a solid crust)? There certainly were times when
some types of geological processes were more common than at other times,
such as sediments when there were more shallow seas.

> (b.) that newer stratigraphic layers "always" superpose older ones.

What evidence do you have that says that new stratigraphic layers sometimes
get inserted between older layers? Do you think God lifts up the old
layer and sweeps the new one in underneath?

> (c.) fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable
> order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances.

Other than burrowing organisms (and micromaterials like pollen)
and redepositing of older strata, what are you talking about?

>
> All of these have been falsified and are widely known NOT to be
> universally true. Like "stasis" of the fossil record the falsity of
> (a.) - (c.) are the dirtly little secrets of paleogeology and
> paleostratigraphy.
>
>
> >One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find
> >frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in
> >favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them
> >individually.
>
> I have run several challenges asking for the broad based evidence for
> the emergence of biological novelty and its transformation to
> maturity, but no one can seem to find any.

Probably because you have a distorted idea of what constitutes a "novelty".
Evolution rarely produces novelty (although certain proteins clearly are
novelties produced by rearranging and combining parts of older proteins).
Evolution typically produces modification of something pre-existing, like
human hands.

> The claim of mountains of evidence of evidence is urban legend (and
> nonsense).
>
>
> >This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution,
> >as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental
> >details.
>
> Yet it is not only NOT misleading; it is exactly true. Hume, Popper
> and others showed that level of evidence is NOT a measure of the
> degree of probability that any universal-like theory is true.
> Surprisingly this is exactly how secular scientists interprets level
> of evidence.

Yet you believe that the *absence* of coherent supporting evidence
supports your ideas? How odd. Evolution remains the best supported
explanation of the evidence.

> However, it is true that a single falsifying observation is logically
> capable of showing that a theory is definitively false. Stasis of the
> fossil record and Irreducibly Complex biological systems falsity
> neoDarwinian Theory.

Except the fossil record is not static over time and no one can even define
Irreducible Complexity in an operational way.

> > In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data
> >from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail
> >scientifically unless it addresses that vast array.
>
> This is nonsense. I have repeatedly asked for even a single peer
> reviewed report producing observable evidence of biological
> transformational change.

What do you mean by "transformational"?

> Since 1998 not one atheist has been able to
> produce including Harshman, Elsberry, Forrest, Okimoto, Lethe,
> Theobold, et al.
>
>
> >As such, Christian
> >anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge
> >to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does
> >not do justice to its true strength."
>
> Nonsense. Darwin admitted in 1859 that the fossil record (stasis and
> sudden appearance) caused his theory significant trouble. In 1972
> Gould agreed. In 1996 Behe identified two biological systems
> (bacterial flagellum and clotting cascade) that were irreducibly
> complex and could not be created by successive, purely naturalistic
> change. These falsify neoDarwinian theory.

Rather Behe *asserted* that those two systems were irreducibly complex
and was shown to be ignorant of the facts about those two systems.

> Genetics has yet to find an observable mechanism for adding new
> information progressively and coherently into a highly complex code.
> All the experiments to date especially Lenski's have not produced a
> single example of the emergence of novelty and its development to
> maturity.

Lenski's experiment did show the emergence of novelty at the molecular
level. The inability to use citric acid was a defining characteristic of E. coli,
allowing E. coli to be differentiated from pathogenic Salmonella.
As well as, there were also morphological changes in cell size and form
(they become more rounded).

<sarcasm on> I presume that what you mean by 'novelty' would require that they develop
a brain larger than yours. Give it few more generations; it shouldn't be that
hard. <sarcasm off>

> >Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly
> >for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
> >
> >Mark
>
> What evidence? I've practically begged the atheists to produce it,
> but it has never been forth coming. The evidence is virtually non
> existent.

Almost all evidence is nonexistent to the willfully blind, deaf, and dumb.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Frank J]

That's my point. Ask them questions and you get evasion. Answer their questions and you give them more facts to misrepresent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:37:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

True, but my point was that I *did* ask; assuming I'm in the
category of "bait-taking Darwinist" it's a counterpoint to
your statement that, other than "those party-poopers Frank J
and TomS", they never do so.
--

[Kermit]

On Apr 6, 4:26 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...
>
> > Last section of the article:
>
> > "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its tr

ue
>
>  s
>
>
>
> > trength."
>
> > Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
> > Mark
>
> Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
> evolution, con-man style, regardless of how well any layman might
> understand his prose.

You mean, like:
The nested hierarchy of morphology.
The later discovered nested hierarchy of genomes, matching the prior.
The fossil record, distributed in time, reflecting progression from
ancient forms to more modern forms, reflecting modification over time.
The forms and timing of the fossil record reflecting plate tectonics,
climate change, etc.
Vestigial structures and behaviors.
A good understanding of genetics, leading to explanatory models for
the mechanics of imperfect reproduction.
Evolutionary developmental biology, which provides nested hierarchies
of developmental stages and process, as well as events that only make
sense in an evolutionary context.

Like that unobservable evidence?

These of course are brief descriptions of whole classes of data. We
can go into any that catch your fancy in as great detail as you care
for.

>
> Also, Venema fails to consider that evolution is built upon very
> simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,
> and that any theory, no matter how internally consistent, rigorous,
> baroque, and/or involuted in its details, based on fantasy has a
> foundation weaker than air.  If one person, namely prawnster, points
> out the phanastical, imaginary "foundation" of Darwinism, the bulbous
> top-heavy structure fails.

I have a hypothesis - you will continue to make assertions such as
this without any data to back them up.

>
> So Venema is incorrect; one need not go point by point with Darwinists
> nor accept any of their premises to destroy the faux-rationality of
> the hypothesis known as evolution.

True, if ignoring data and wrapping oneself up in the comforting
blanket of self-deception is the favored methodology.

Kermit

[prawnster]

On Apr 7, 6:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Would you care to address the evidence presented here:
>
> http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jhered/freepdf/79-225.pdf
>
> It seems to show phenotypic change closely connected to allelic
> change.
>
> or are you just going to keep bleating like a sheep, "no evidence
> waaaaah! no evidence waaaaahhhhhhhh!" If so, please go home to your
> mommy.

Oh, wow. Some plants creating more plants. Wow.

Wouldn't it be neat-o if those plants started producing finches?

Now that would be something!

[prawnster]

On Apr 7, 2:07 am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Pity he elects to describe anti-evolutionary materials as "Christian" when
> his sentence quoted above simply echoes the statement back in 1996 by Pope
> John Paul II - leader of the world's largest Christian denominations with 1
> billion members - that
>
> "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of [Pius XII's]
> encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as
> more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had
> progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a
> series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in
> the results of these independent studies-which was neither planned nor
> sought-constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

So you think I'll be convinced when you make an appeal to a Christian
authority versus an appeal to an atheo-Darwinist authority? No,
appeals to authority are pseudoreasoning no matter who the authority
is.

Lightweight.

[prawnster]

On Apr 11, 3:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> You mean, like:
> The nested hierarchy of morphology.
> The later discovered nested hierarchy of genomes, matching the prior.
> The fossil record, distributed in time, reflecting progression from
> ancient forms to more modern forms, reflecting modification over time.
> The forms and timing of the fossil record reflecting plate tectonics,
> climate change, etc.
> Vestigial structures and behaviors.
> A good understanding of genetics, leading to explanatory models for
> the mechanics of imperfect reproduction.
> Evolutionary developmental biology, which provides nested hierarchies
> of developmental stages and process, as well as events that only make
> sense in an evolutionary context.
>
> Like that unobservable evidence?
>

That, you assume. But this, we know:

Man's designs can be organized into nested hierarchies.
The fossil record is a bunch of living critters buried suddenly.
Vestigial structures are placeholders for man's prideful ignorance.
Genetics is God's language of life.
Evo-devo biology is a well-known fraud.

[prawnster]

On Apr 8, 6:33 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]

> But it's not. Rather it's:
>
> "Ooh, more evidence to take out of context to peddle incredulity to unsuspecting new readers. Another opportunity to evade questions about my own 'theory', not that bait-taking 'Darwinists' ever ask, other than those party-poopers Frank J and TomS. If 'Darwinists" don't call me on my double standard, few readers will notice."
>

No evasion here. My hypothesis is Goddidit. I say it loud, I say it
proud. Repeatedly, if needed, for those with short-term memory
deficiencies.

[jillery]

Yes, it would prove creationism.

[jillery]

Your ability to repeat assertions without foundation is
well-established. Your ability to provide reasoned argument needs
some work.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/12/12 9:49 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:00 pm, Kermit<unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> You mean, like:
>> The nested hierarchy of morphology.
>> The later discovered nested hierarchy of genomes, matching the prior.
>> The fossil record, distributed in time, reflecting progression from
>> ancient forms to more modern forms, reflecting modification over time.
>> The forms and timing of the fossil record reflecting plate tectonics,
>> climate change, etc.
>> Vestigial structures and behaviors.
>> A good understanding of genetics, leading to explanatory models for
>> the mechanics of imperfect reproduction.
>> Evolutionary developmental biology, which provides nested hierarchies
>> of developmental stages and process, as well as events that only make
>> sense in an evolutionary context.
>>
>> Like that unobservable evidence?
>>
>
> That, you assume. But this, we know:
>
> Man's designs can be organized into nested hierarchies.

Anything *can* be organized into nested hierarchies. Life, but not
designed things, demands such an arrangement.

> The fossil record is a bunch of living critters buried suddenly.

Get real. Da Vinci recognized that as hokum centuries ago.

> Vestigial structures are placeholders for man's prideful ignorance.

In your case, yes.

> Genetics is God's language of life.

So God is illiterate? Because genetics is not a language.

> Evo-devo biology is a well-known fraud.

So, given your rejection of the God, why do you accept creationism?

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

[prawnster]

On Apr 13, 11:30 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
> [...]

> Anything *can* be organized into nested hierarchies.  Life, but not
> designed things, demands such an arrangement.
>

Thank you. You're making memorable progress.

But what or who exactly is "Life"? Only people demand that things be
arranged or organized. If by "life" you mean the abstract concept of
all things living, I further note that abstract concepts are unable to
demand or organize anything. If by "life" you mean the creatures
themselves then, other than people, they never demand arrangements or
organization; the only thing animals demand is food, food, food and
the occasional pet, pet, pet.

That some men are obsessed with arranging, categorizing, and
organizing things is not evidence that those things designed,
arranged, categorized, and organized themselves. Nested hierarchies
are an after-the-fact arrangement of the intelligent designs of man
and God.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:30 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anything *can* be organized into nested hierarchies. Life, but not
>> designed things, demands such an arrangement.
>>
>
> Thank you. You're making memorable progress.
>
> But what or who exactly is "Life"? Only people demand that things be
> arranged or organized. If by "life" you mean the abstract concept of
> all things living, I further note that abstract concepts are unable to
> demand or organize anything. If by "life" you mean the creatures
> themselves then, other than people, they never demand arrangements or
> organization; the only thing animals demand is food, food, food and
> the occasional pet, pet, pet.

Now that was a truly stupid argument, since you presumably knew what he
meant by the metaphorical use of "demand". What he means is that the
characteristics of organisms have an innately hierarchical structure.
Our arrangements into a classification are not imposed but discovered.

> That some men are obsessed with arranging, categorizing, and
> organizing things is not evidence that those things designed,
> arranged, categorized, and organized themselves.

Agreed, but that's another calculated exercise in missing the point.

> Nested hierarchies
> are an after-the-fact arrangement of the intelligent designs of man
> and God.

Just not true. There is a discoverable nested hierarchy of life. Some of
those discoveries are easier than others. We currently can't be sure,
for example, just where turtles go within reptiles. But we can be
completely sure of the relationships among apes and monkeys, including
H. sapiens. No matter what data you look at, you get the same nested
hierarchy. Now why should that be true?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<beceeaec-0d0f-4d8e...@v7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

*
Thank you prawnster for your lucid explanation of your beliefs.

earle
*

[Eric Root]

It's not science unless you can propose a mechanism that is consistent
with other scientific understanding. So, how did God do it? If by
supernatural means, what happens at exactly the point supernature
crosses into nature?

[prawnster]

On Apr 14, 9:37 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> prawnster wrote:
> [...]

> > That some men are obsessed with arranging, categorizing, and
> > organizing things is not evidence that those things designed,
> > arranged, categorized, and organized themselves.
>
> Agreed, but that's another calculated exercise in missing the point.
>
> > Nested hierarchies
> > are an after-the-fact arrangement of the intelligent designs of man
> > and God.
>
> Just not true. There is a discoverable nested hierarchy of life. Some of
> those discoveries are easier than others. We currently can't be sure,
> for example, just where turtles go within reptiles. But we can be
> completely sure of the relationships among apes and monkeys, including
> H. sapiens. No matter what data you look at, you get the same nested
> hierarchy. Now why should that be true?

Thank you for agreeing with me in regard to the fact that man's
inventions may be organized into nested hierarchies. It's not
important to me or anyone else whether you regard this as "missing the
point." The important point is that we know that man's inventions are
intelligently designed, and thus nested hierarchies are not evidence
of blind, unintelligent evolution. You're making memorable progress,
Mr. Harshman. I hope you're able to understand my eighth-grade level
English in this case; I know in the past you have purported to
misunderstand my fifth-grade English, and I'm happy that you have
recovered from that deficiency.

[prawnster]

On Apr 15, 8:01 am, Eric Root <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> It's not science unless you can propose a mechanism that is consistent
> with other scientific understanding.  So, how did God do it?  If by
> supernatural means, what happens at exactly the point supernature
> crosses into nature?

The answer is that God's creative processes are mysterious.

And since you're unable to produce even one observable instance of
evolution, you have no claim to greater rationality in this regard.

Nice try, though.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:37 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>>> That some men are obsessed with arranging, categorizing, and
>>> organizing things is not evidence that those things designed,
>>> arranged, categorized, and organized themselves.
>> Agreed, but that's another calculated exercise in missing the point.
>>
>>> Nested hierarchies
>>> are an after-the-fact arrangement of the intelligent designs of man
>>> and God.
>> Just not true. There is a discoverable nested hierarchy of life. Some of
>> those discoveries are easier than others. We currently can't be sure,
>> for example, just where turtles go within reptiles. But we can be
>> completely sure of the relationships among apes and monkeys, including
>> H. sapiens. No matter what data you look at, you get the same nested
>> hierarchy. Now why should that be true?
>
> Thank you for agreeing with me in regard to the fact that man's
> inventions may be organized into nested hierarchies.

I will also agree, if you like, that you can call a dog's tail a leg, or
that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. As has been pointed
out to you before, you can organize anything into a nested hierarchy,
whether it belongs that way or not. I can organize a handful of rocks I
picked up in my back yard into a nested hierarchy. Does that mean the
handful was designed?

> It's not
> important to me or anyone else whether you regard this as "missing the
> point."

But is it important whether it really is missing the point? (Which it
is, by the way.)

> The important point is that we know that man's inventions are
> intelligently designed, and thus nested hierarchies are not evidence
> of blind, unintelligent evolution.

Didn't say anything about blind or unintelligent. Just evolution. The
nested hierarchy of life results from common descent, regardless of how
the various differences became sprinkled over the tree. And you have
once again confused a real, discoverable nested hierarchy (life) with
the fact that you can impose a nested hierarchy on anything at all
(including human inventions). Discovery and imposition are different,
and that's the point you have missed.

> You're making memorable progress,
> Mr. Harshman. I hope you're able to understand my eighth-grade level
> English in this case; I know in the past you have purported to
> misunderstand my fifth-grade English, and I'm happy that you have
> recovered from that deficiency.

It isn't your English that's the problem; it's the incoherence of the
ideas you use your 5th-8th grade English to express. Now do you get it?

[RAM]

On Apr 17, 10:14 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:01 am, Eric Root <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > It's not science unless you can propose a mechanism that is consistent
> > with other scientific understanding.  So, how did God do it?  If by
> > supernatural means, what happens at exactly the point supernature
> > crosses into nature?
>
> The answer is that God's creative processes are mysterious.

So you don't have an answer other than goddidit. How does that make
evolution untenable? If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
did it this way. And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
did it this way.

>
> And since you're unable to produce even one observable instance of
> evolution, you have no claim to greater rationality in this regard.

It is and will remain unobservable to those in denial and willfully
ignorant of science.
>
> Nice try, though.

Yours was a pitiful one.

[Ernest Major]

In message <g6udna65l9D...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes

Perhaps he's parodying Tony? The blanket denial of evidence, and the
accretion of adjectives are markers of Tony's style. But he's also
alluded to Ray's (apparent) denial of sexual reproduction, and there's
also an odour of Nicola/s about his posts.

>
>> You're making memorable progress,
>> Mr. Harshman. I hope you're able to understand my eighth-grade level
>> English in this case; I know in the past you have purported to
>> misunderstand my fifth-grade English, and I'm happy that you have
>> recovered from that deficiency.
>
>It isn't your English that's the problem; it's the incoherence of the
>ideas you use your 5th-8th grade English to express. Now do you get it?
>

--
Alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 8:01 am, Eric Root <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's not science unless you can propose a mechanism that is consistent
>> with other scientific understanding.  So, how did God do it?  If by
>> supernatural means, what happens at exactly the point supernature
>> crosses into nature?
>
>The answer is that God's creative processes are mysterious.

That is a poor answer.

>And since you're unable to produce even one observable instance of
>evolution, you have no claim to greater rationality in this regard.

More accurately, produce an instance of evolution you accept. The
problem lies not with the observations, but with you.


>Nice try, though.

[prawnster]

On Apr 17, 9:29 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> So you don't have an answer other than goddidit.  How does that make
> evolution untenable?  If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
> then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
> did it this way.  And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
> boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
> did it this way.
>

Goddidit does not make evolution untenable. It is rationally equal to
evolution. So, your move: choose your faith.

Creative processes are often mysterious, even when man creates. Think
of your own examples.

As to how or why God creates as he does, I'm not going to ask Him to
explain himself at every point like a troll. It is enough for me to
enjoy his creations. Equally, I don't scour the letters,
correspondence, and books of music composers to understand their
creative processes; as above, I really don't care: it is sufficient
for me to simply enjoy their sublime creations.

[alyc...@btinternet.com]

If you don't care, why are you here, whinging about evolution?

[prawnster]

On Apr 24, 5:18 am, alycid...@btinternet.com wrote:
> [...]

> If you don't care, why are you here, whinging about evolution?

Because evolution is so useless, it almost never comes up in normal
day-to-day conversation, other than people talking about how they wish
they still walked on all fours to alleviate low-back pain or something
equally silly and pointless like that. This usernet forum gives me
the opportunity to talk about and destroy Darwinism. Now go back to
alt.dork.trainspotting.

[Burkhard]

Sure. And in your dreams, you are a muscle-packed hero who strangles
dragons barehanded and wins the fair princess.
Meanwhile, in a place called reality, life goes on.

[Matchstick]

In article <0800c4d8-713f-4920-8623-
274e37...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>, zweib...@ymail.com says...

So when were you planning to start destroying Darwinism ?
I hope I still have time to buy some popcorn and reserve a good seat...

--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic

[alyc...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:14:28 PM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:18 am, alycid...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > If you don't care, why are you here, whinging about evolution?
>
>
> Because evolution is so useless, it almost never comes up in normal
> day-to-day conversation, other than people talking about how they wish
> they still walked on all fours to alleviate low-back pain or something
> equally silly and pointless like that.

Aw, see, look, he does care really. Nobody else will talk to him about evolution, so he comes here, so he can talk about this thing he doesn't care about. He needs us. Innee cute?

> This usernet forum gives me
> the opportunity to talk about and destroy Darwinism.

Have at it, dude. When do you plan to start the destroying part?

> Now go back to
> alt.dork.trainspotting.

Nah. I think I'll stay here for a bit and annoy the likes of you. It's fun.

[HaShem Rules]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence

>
> Last section of the article:
>
> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its true

s
>
> trength."
>
> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
> Mark

This creationist thinks man is deceived in orgasm. Too soon did Adam
and Eve experience auto erotic orgasm by biting into the forbidden
fruit. They covered their genitals with their hands, at HaShem's
approach the next morning....

"Why are you doing that?" HaShem asked....
'We were ashamed'
"Did you eat of the tree I commanded you, to not eat?"

(He knows damn well they did.) Genetics and psychology!

"The serpent beguiled me and I did eat."

Look at what their offspring would experience.

Women giving birth in great pain..
Men working by the sweat of their brow....
And man's years will be 120....

The oldest so far, that I know of, was a black
woman, died at 123 years old..

Close enough for, "BINGO", Almighty God....

He's all about genetics and psychology. And technology.
His 1500 cubic mile kingdom/house in creation, must be
a technological marvel....

He, nor His son want worship. They want to stay with
us and be our friends....

But first, it must be known world wide there is only one
Almighty God. Essentially getting rid of the generic God
of all Earthly religions. Their God, at best, an Omniscient
being. NONE Almighty, but for Judaism.....

--~>
Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
Genesis 16, Islam....
Genesis 17, Judaism...

Call me crazy, but I think that means there is the
Almighty God in the mix....

[alyc...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:33:55 PM UTC+1, HaShem Rules wrote:

> This creationist thinks man is deceived in orgasm.

Oh, very often. Did you never see When Harry Met Sally?

[Kermit]

On Apr 12, 9:49 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:00 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [...]
> > You mean, like:
> > The nested hierarchy of morphology.
> > The later discovered nested hierarchy of genomes, matching the prior.
> > The fossil record, distributed in time, reflecting progression from
> > ancient forms to more modern forms, reflecting modification over time.
> > The forms and timing of the fossil record reflecting plate tectonics,
> > climate change, etc.
> > Vestigial structures and behaviors.
> > A good understanding of genetics, leading to explanatory models for
> > the mechanics of imperfect reproduction.
> > Evolutionary developmental biology, which provides nested hierarchies
> > of developmental stages and process, as well as events that only make
> > sense in an evolutionary context.
>
> > Like that unobservable evidence?
>
> That, you assume.  But this, we know:
>
> Man's designs can be organized into nested hierarchies.

Man's designs can be organized into numerous superficial hiearchies.

Living species (and extinct, for that matter) can only be organized
into one that makes any sense. this is because the species are
descended from a common ancestor via modification. There are no
lactating mothers with feathers, for example. This would not be an
issue for an omnipotent creator. Why would he make it *look as though
he did it that way? Either he did it that way, he is lying, or he
doesn't exist.

Why do humans, for example, have a non-functional plantaris tendon?

> The fossil record is a bunch of living critters buried suddenly.

No, it's not.
Many show no sign of sudden trauma; they appear as though they died
nonviolently and then were buried by silt.
Oldest form with substantial body parts are in the deepest, oldest
strata, and are replaced over great periods of time by more and more
modern forms. We even have fossil tracks, covered by fossil forests,
covered by another layer of fossils from yet later (more modern)
organisms. The fossil record clearly displays deep time, successions
of more and more modern organisms, each modifications of previous
flora and fauna.

> Vestigial structures are placeholders for man's prideful ignorance.

Bwahahahaha! Who is is that keeps saying "I ain't no son of a monkey?"
Creationists!

I am a monkey, and a fish. And so are you, but less informed. By
design, apparently.

> Genetics is God's language of life.

And hydrogen fusion is god's language of stars, and convection is
God's language of heat transference in a liquid. What does adding
"God's language" add to our understanding of how things work?

> Evo-devo biology is a well-known fraud.

No, it's claimed that by folks who are proud of their ignorance. I
know you won't bother, but why not describe one of its failings?
Something *specific. Thanks.

Kermit

[prawnster]

On Apr 24, 7:41 am, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> [...]

> So when were you planning to start destroying Darwinism ?
> I hope I still have time to buy some popcorn and reserve a good seat...
>

Sounds like fun. Check my archives.

[chris thompson]

For popcorn or seats? Cuz you sure haven't done anything to destroy
evolutionary theory...not you, not anyone.

Chris

[Steven L.]

"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:beceeaec-0d0f-4d8e...@v7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com:

Believe me, I have more respect for you for your honest statement of
your beliefs, than I do for some of the others around here (is that you,
Kleinman?) who criticize evolution but are deliberately evasive about
their own creationist beliefs.





-- Steven L.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:57:16 -0700 (PDT), in article
<15b96660-82a4-4bad...@u4g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."

>
>On Apr 17, 9:29 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> So you don't have an answer other than goddidit.  How does that make
>> evolution untenable?  If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
>> then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
>> did it this way.  And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
>> boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
>> did it this way.
>>
>
>Goddidit does not make evolution untenable. It is rationally equal to
>evolution. So, your move: choose your faith.

[...snip...]

To claim that God did something or other sometime, somewhere is not
an alternative to evolutionary biology. They are not statements of the
same kind.

Just like one can believe that all things are creatures of God and
also accept that living things are individual products of naturalistic
reproductive and developmental processes.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Earle Jones]

In article <1cCdnYX4LYagegrS...@earthlink.com>,

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> news:beceeaec-0d0f-4d8e...@v7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 8, 6:33 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > But it's not. Rather it's:
> > >
> > > "Ooh, more evidence to take out of context to peddle incredulity to
> > > unsuspecting new readers. Another opportunity to evade questions about my
> > > own 'theory', not that bait-taking 'Darwinists' ever ask, other than
> > > those party-poopers Frank J and TomS. If 'Darwinists" don't call me on my
> > > double standard, few readers will notice."
> > >
> >
> > No evasion here. My hypothesis is Goddidit. I say it loud, I say it
> > proud. Repeatedly, if needed, for those with short-term memory
> > deficiencies.

*
Say it loud! Say it proud! Say it repeatedly! Hell, say it in ALL
CAPS! With lots of exclamation points!!!!!!

GODDIDIT! GODDIDIT! GODDIDIT!

GODDAM IT, GODDIDIT!!!!

Now, take a pill and go to bed.

earle
*

[HybridArchangel]

On Apr 25, 10:03 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:57:16 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <15b96660-82a4-4bad-a002-5879a1b60...@u4g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, prawnster

> stated..."
>
> >On Apr 17, 9:29 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> So you don't have an answer other than goddidit. How does that make
> >> evolution untenable? If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
> >> then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
> >> did it this way. And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
> >> boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
> >> did it this way.
>
> >Goddidit does not make evolution untenable. It is rationally equal to
> >evolution. So, your move: choose your faith.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> To claim that God did something or other sometime, somewhere is not
> an alternative to evolutionary biology. They are not statements of the
> same kind.

Evolutionary biology for lower life maybe. But not for modern man.
We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen?

>
> Just like one can believe that all things are creatures of God and
> also accept that living things are individual products of naturalistic
> reproductive and developmental processes.

Almighty God did it. From “In the beginning”...
He is a non-corporeal psyche, beyond the stars..
(Where Lucifer put himself). <Isaiah 14:12>

We being 98.8% Neanderthal, is because, "Cain knew his Neanderthal
wife." (If it said that in Scripture, there would be no question.")

The offspring of Cain were the first modern humans. The Cro-Magnon.

We have an intelligence gene and a longevity gene. Inherited from
Cain.

We kept all of our genes of swill, in the interbreeding.....
We are genetically 99.8% Neanderthal...

Modern man was made to be immortal. It didn't work out that way.
We were cursed with death and psychologically positioned to
accept the curse as a normal way of life.

All life on the Earth. From the bottom of the ocean to the highest
flying
bird, was seeded, by His legions of angels. With seed from their home
planets.

Nothing just popped into existence.....

~>
Islam and Judaism exist, and they have an origin...

Genesis 16, Islam...
Genesis 17, Judaism...

Call me crazy but, I think there is the Almighty God in the mix.

[Rolf]

On 12.05.2012 03:19, HybridArchangel wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:03 am, TomS<TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:57:16 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <15b96660-82a4-4bad-a002-5879a1b60...@u4g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
>> stated..."
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 9:29 pm, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> So you don't have an answer other than goddidit. How does that make
>>>> evolution untenable? If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
>>>> then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
>>>> did it this way. And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
>>>> boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
>>>> did it this way.
>>
>>> Goddidit does not make evolution untenable. It is rationally equal to
>>> evolution. So, your move: choose your faith.
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> To claim that God did something or other sometime, somewhere is not
>> an alternative to evolutionary biology. They are not statements of the
>> same kind.
>
> Evolutionary biology for lower life maybe. But not for modern man.
> We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen?

Get your facts first. We are nothing like 99.8 & Neandertal, we are only
a few % Neanderthal, the exact amount varies between populations, with
none or very little in Africa. I'd have to look that up.

>>
>> Just like one can believe that all things are creatures of God and
>> also accept that living things are individual products of naturalistic
>> reproductive and developmental processes.
>
> Almighty God did it. From “In the beginning”...
> He is a non-corporeal psyche, beyond the stars..
> (Where Lucifer put himself).<Isaiah 14:12>
>
> We being 98.8% Neanderthal, is because, "Cain knew his Neanderthal
> wife." (If it said that in Scripture, there would be no question.")
>
> The offspring of Cain were the first modern humans. The Cro-Magnon.
>
> We have an intelligence gene and a longevity gene. Inherited from
> Cain.
>
> We kept all of our genes of swill, in the interbreeding.....
> We are genetically 99.8% Neanderthal...
>

We are not.

> Modern man was made to be immortal.

"He' was not.

It didn't work out that way.
> We were cursed with death and psychologically positioned to
> accept the curse as a normal way of life.
>

We were not.

> All life on the Earth. From the bottom of the ocean to the highest
> flying
> bird, was seeded, by His legions of angels. With seed from their home
> planets.
>

Bull.

> Nothing just popped into existence.....
>

Who said it did?

> ~>
> Islam and Judaism exist, and they have an origin...
>
> Genesis 16, Islam...
> Genesis 17, Judaism...
>
> Call me crazy but, I think there is the Almighty God in the mix.
>>

Think whatever you like, it's a free country.

[HaShem Rules]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
>
> Last section of the article:
>

> &quot;As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its

true strength.&quot;

And it's still a theory....
Nobody knows from what they evolved! How good is that?

Here's the end of evolution.....

The Neanerthal ended up in "Northern Israel Wilderess" some 60,000 years ago.
They were the people in the wilderness that Cian referred to. "They will kill me."

He interbred with them/us, instead...

For Christ Jesus's sake, we are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen? Cain knew his wife. A nenderthal. We kept our genome of swill. 99% Chimp. 98% alligator....etc....

>
> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly
> for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.

Then he must know the Almighty Creator God. Only one of those. None other God is Omnipotent. The "God" of men, (could be anything). At best, Omniscient...
>
> Mark

There is a hierarchy at play upon the Earth....
Between good and evil. Judaism and Islam....
The good god is Almighty...
The evil god is Mighty....

Will the real Creator God please stand up?

It's a nobrainer, really....

[HaShem Rules]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:39:53 AM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> On 12.05.2012 03:19, HybridArchangel wrote:

> &gt; On Apr 25, 10:03 am, TomS&lt;TomS_mem...@newsguy.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;&gt; &quot;On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:57:16 -0700 (PDT), in article
> &gt;&gt; &lt;15b96660-82a4-4bad-a002-5879a1b60...@u4g2000pbu.googlegroups.com&gt;, prawnster
> &gt;&gt; stated...&quot;
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; On Apr 17, 9:29 pm, RAM&lt;ramather...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; [...]
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; So you don&#39;t have an answer other than goddidit. How does that make
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; evolution untenable? If he is creative and mysterious as you assert
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; then evolution can be his mechanism and it is a mystery as to why he
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; did it this way. And for mysterious reasons he thinks you are to
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; boneheaded to learn how he did it and we all will never know why he
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; did it this way.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; Goddidit does not make evolution untenable. It is rationally equal to
> &gt;&gt;&gt; evolution. So, your move: choose your faith.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; [...snip...]
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; To claim that God did something or other sometime, somewhere is not
> &gt;&gt; an alternative to evolutionary biology. They are not statements of the
> &gt;&gt; same kind.
> &gt;
> &gt; Evolutionary biology for lower life maybe. But not for modern man.
> &gt; We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen?
>
> Get your facts first. We are nothing like 99.8 &amp; Neandertal, we are only

> a few % Neanderthal, the exact amount varies between populations, with

> none or very little in Africa. I&#39;d have to look that up.

http://buzzintechnology.com/2010/05/neanderthal-genome-sequenced-we-are-
all-a-bit-of-caveman/

... genome is the risk of contamination from modern human as the genomes
of Neanderthal and modern human are ~99.8% ... Scientists have sequenced
the genome of Ne… http ...

A Neanderthal tribe ended up in Northern Israel Wilderness some 60,000
years ago.Understand that? I just want to deal with them.....
>
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; Just like one can believe that all things are creatures of God and
> &gt;&gt; also accept that living things are individual products of naturalistic
> &gt;&gt; reproductive and developmental processes.
> &gt;
> &gt; Almighty God did it. From “In the beginning”...
> &gt; He is a non-corporeal psyche, beyond the stars..
> &gt; (Where Lucifer put himself).&lt;Isaiah 14:12&gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; We being 98.8% Neanderthal, is because, &quot;Cain knew his Neanderthal
> &gt; wife.&quot; (If it said that in Scripture, there would be no question.&quot;)
> &gt;
> &gt; The offspring of Cain were the first modern humans. The Cro-Magnon.
> &gt;
> &gt; We have an intelligence gene and a longevity gene. Inherited from
> &gt; Cain.
> &gt;
> &gt; We kept all of our genes of swill, in the interbreeding.....
> &gt; We are genetically 99.8% Neanderthal...
> &gt;
> We are not.

"Neanderthal and modern human are ~99.8% "
>
> &gt; Modern man was made to be immortal.
>
> &quot;He&#39; was not.

The first modern humans were Adam and Eve....

Adam was made from the dust/minerals of the Earth. His wife genetically
engineered using genes from Adam's rib....

You do know the power of genetics, don't you? Do you think we are the
only race in all of creation, that has the knowledge? Our highest technology
is rocket science.Not anti gravity. No bending and dilating space time and
distance...

Technologies man sees as plausible. But not possible for a dumbed down
species. Well, there are races who use that technology. Whether you like
it or not!

The legions of HaShem use anti gravity crafts, and can bend space time
and distance. The 1500 cubic mile kingdom of the Almighty, dilates time....
(measured in the Apocalypse/Armageddon)

They are interacting with us in the crop markings.....
>
> It didn&#39;t work out that way.
> &gt; We were cursed with death and psychologically positioned to
> &gt; accept the curse as a normal way of life.
> &gt;
> We were not.

Of course we do, accept the curse of death, as a normal way of life.

"Man's years will be 120" (HaShem) The longest I know of, is a 123
'year old woman'.

We are a genetically dumbed down species. Made to have immortality
thru our immortal parents Adam and Eve. But they experienced auto
erotic orgasm by biting into the forbidden fruit. Spilled the seed which
HaShem wanted to use in the virgin He made, to borne His son.
>
> &gt; All life on the Earth. From the bottom of the ocean to the highest
> &gt; flying
> &gt; bird, was seeded, by His legions of angels. With seed from their home
> &gt; planets.
> &gt;
>
> Bull

Where's your imagination and reasoning?
>
> &gt; Nothing just popped into existence.....
> &gt;
>
> Who said it did?

You seem as if you believe it did.....

The Almighty is all about the creation. He exists beyond the stars.
A non corporeal psyche. Had to make legions of Omniscient beings
to "do for Him" in the natural creation. Calls them His, hosts....
>
> &gt; ~&gt;
> &gt; Islam and Judaism exist, and they have an origin...
> &gt;
> &gt; Genesis 16, Islam...
> &gt; Genesis 17, Judaism...
> &gt;
> &gt; Call me crazy but, I think there is the Almighty God in the mix.
> &gt;&gt;
>
> Think whatever you like, it&#39;s a free country.

You must be a self proclaimed evolved freak. If so, tell me. From
what, did you evolve?
>
> &gt;&gt; --
> &gt;&gt; ---Tom S.
> &gt;&gt; &quot;Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it&quot;
> &gt;&gt; Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons &quot;Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena&quot;
> &gt;&gt; (1999)
> &gt;

--
Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
Genesis 16, Islam....
Genesis 17, Judaism...

Call me crazy, but I know that means, there is the Almighty God in the mix....
Do you....?

[Louann Miller]

HaShem Rules <01910i...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:85580044-2492-447a...@googlegroups.com:

> Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
> Genesis 16, Islam....
> Genesis 17, Judaism...
>
> Call me crazy, but I know that means, there is the Almighty God in the
> mix.... Do you....?

Does the existence of Hinduism prove that Brahma and Shiva and the other
Hindu gods exist?

Shinto, same question.

[Greg Guarino]

Did anyone else feel the earth lurch to a stop?

[HaShem Rules]

If one wants them to....

Only one Almighty God. His name is HaShem....

"God" can be anything. Like Lucifer, in the guise of Allah, being All Mighty God. Because he is forbidden by HaShem, to go, Almighty God. Omnipotence, beyond the stars, verses Omniscience, in the natural creation......

Will the real Creator God please stand up?

Its a no 'brainer' really.....

There is a hierarchy in play upon the Earth. And I know, that puts the Almighty in the mix.
>
>
>
> Shinto, same question.

Same answer....
HaShem Rules...

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:36:41 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Did anyone else feel the earth lurch to a stop?

How could we? The Earth doesn't move.

[Earle Jones]

In article <70342145-098f-4465...@googlegroups.com>,

HaShem Rules <01910i...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:34:27 PM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > HaShem Rules <01910i...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >
> > news:85580044-2492-447a...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
> >
> > > Genesis 16, Islam....
> >
> > > Genesis 17, Judaism...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Call me crazy, but I know that means, there is the
> > > Almighty God in the mix.... Do you....?
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the existence of Hinduism prove that Brahma and Shiva > and the other
> > Hindu gods exist?
>
> If one wants them to....
>
> Only one Almighty God. His name is HaShem....
>
> "God" can be anything. Like Lucifer, in the guise of Allah, being All Mighty
> God. Because he is forbidden by HaShem, to go, Almighty God. Omnipotence,
> beyond the stars, verses Omniscience, in the natural creation......

*
"Man created God in his own image."

--Marvin 3:16

earle
*

"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm
and yet will make Gods by the dozen!"

--Michel Eyqyem de Montaigne, French essayist (1533-92)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <earle.jones-28D4...@news.giganews.com>,
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Marvin 3:16

3:16 because 3.16 is approximately the square root of 10 and a rough
approximation of pi hence useful in order of magnitude calculations?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[HaShem Rules]

Man did not make the one and only, Almighty God...
That God, made man....

[John Harshman]

Wait -- is Tony back? If so, where? If not, why is this ancient thread
getting new traffic?

[Earle Jones]

In article <proto-14BC24....@news.panix.com>,

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <earle.jones-28D4...@news.giganews.com>,
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Marvin 3:16
>
> 3:16 because 3.16 is approximately the square root of 10 and a rough
> approximation of pi hence useful in order of magnitude calculations?

*
My favorite approximation of pi:

Just remember the numbers 11, 33, 55

Write them down this way:

First write 1, 1, 3
Then write 3, 5, 5

Then write 355 / 113

The answer is:

3.1415929

error in the 7th decimal place.

earle
*

[HaShem Rules]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
>
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
>
>
>
> Last section of the article:
>
>
>

> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its true

s
>
>
>
> trength."
>
>
>

> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
>
>

> Mark

We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How the hell did that happen?

If scripture read; "And Cain lay with his Neanderthal wife."
Then there would be no question in the origin of where, and
when, the first modern humans appeared. The Cro-Magnon......
The offspring of Cain.....

30,000 years later, when the hybridization was complete, Seth
was born. Where were the parents for 30,000 years...?

Hint....the kingdom dilates time....
The crafts of His legions bend space and time, to get anywhere
in creation HaShem sends them. They do all the seeding for Him.

"The Earth was not made to be barren." He told His legions to
make it an Ecosphere. He would have His son borne into it....

All life on the Earth, came from life on many diferring planets.
A planet with dinosaurs?

The rest is recorded history.....

[HaShem Rules]

On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:34:27 PM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:

Do they believe they exist? Not one Almighty....
Omnipotence negates all Omniscience....
An Almighhty God negates all, other Gods and religion.
None with the Almighty in the mix. "Mighty, and All Mighty",
which is what Allah refers.....
is NOT "Almighty".
>
>
>
> Shinto, same question.

Twonky, same answer......

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:01:53 -0700 (PDT), HaShem Rules
<01910i...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Please show us the evidence you have for your religious doctrines.

[Earle Jones]

In article <df18c972-b0cb-4830...@googlegroups.com>,

*
I am a creationist. I believe man created God in his own image.

earle
*

[HaShem Rules]

That 'image' is His psyche. That psyche was put into Jesus.
"When you see me. You see my father," <Christ Jesus>

So you are a Darwinist? Tell me, from what are you evolved?
Hint, our species is 99.8% Neanderthal genome...

How the hell did that hapen...?

I'm re-writing verses....
"And Cain knew his Neanerthal wife".....

Man didn't make the Creation, the Almighty God did. Only
one of those...

No other God on the planet is Omnipotent.

That God is beyond the stars. Where Lucifer put himself in
preparing himself, to become Allah. (Isaiah 14:12) He had
his own made and chosen people. His own Prophet, and Scripture.
Beecomming like the "Most High", HaShem.....

Lucifer is committing plagiarism in Allah....
>
>
>
> earle
>
> *

The truth is, Cain interbred with the Neanderthal.
30,000 years later, when the hbridization was complete,
Seth was born. (Time dilation of the kingdom).

He in turn, inbred with his brother's offspring. That
makes us a race of interbred/inbred hybrids.

When are we going to see that truth in the mainstream?
It entails the one and only Omnipotent God and His reason
and motive for making the natural creation, to have a
son born into flesh. It was hybrid flesh, rather than virgin
flesh.

[Earle Jones]

In article <6815b4bf-e7dc-4cdf...@googlegroups.com>,

*
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

David Hume (Scottish philosopher 1711 - 1776)

earle
*

[Perseus]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:26:06 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2:03�pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
> >
>

> > http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-an...

>
> >
>
> > Last section of the article:
>
> >
>
> > "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its tr

ue
>
>
>
> s
>
> >
>
> > trength."
>
> >
>
> > Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
> >
>
> > Mark
>
>
>

> Venema creates the illusion that there is any observable evidence for
>
> evolution, con-man style, regardless of how well any layman might
>
> understand his prose.
>
>
>
> Also, Venema fails to consider that evolution is built upon very
>
> simple assumptions, none of them observed, all of them phantastical,
>
> and that any theory, no matter how internally consistent, rigorous,
>
> baroque, and/or involuted in its details, based on fantasy has a
>
> foundation weaker than air. If one person, namely prawnster, points
>
> out the phanastical, imaginary "foundation" of Darwinism, the bulbous
>
> top-heavy structure fails.
>
>
>
> So Venema is incorrect; one need not go point by point with Darwinists
>
> nor accept any of their premises to destroy the faux-rationality of
>
> the hypothesis known as evolution.

then, creationism is a theory "not based on fantasy and has their
foundation weaker than air"?

"God did it" is not a fake rationality?

Perseus

[hybridarcha...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
>
>

> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence

[hybridarcha...@gmail.com]

The Neanderthals ended up in the Nothern Israel wilderness 700 thousand years ago. Cain was afraid the people in the widerness would killl him, for he, killing his brother...

Well, he interbred with them instead, as did his offspring. The Neanderthal disaapeared into a new moderrn human race. The Cro-Magnon. Seth was born at that time, and inbred with his brother's offspring.....

That makes ALL of us, a species of interbred/inbred hybrids....

And NOT evolved...

So rather than being evoled, I am an interbred/inbred modern human. No more, "What did I evolve from?"

Problem is, there is one Almighty Creator God involved.....

He is beyond the stars. Using His legions to seed planets...
He has a 1500 cubic mile kingdom in creation.

"Come before me Abraham and be perfect, for I am the Almighty God, and there is none else!" And there really is none else. As close as it gets is, Allah/Lucifer calls himsel, All Mighty. Fuhking snake!

[hybridarcha...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:03:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> Came across a good description of creationist arguments here:
>
>
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
>
>
>
> Last section of the article:
>
>
>
> "As we have seen, the strength of evolution as a scientific theory does not rest in any one piece of evidence, but rather in the numerous pieces from multiple disciplines that fit together in a cohesive way, mutually reinforcing one another. One aspect of Christian anti-evolutionary materials that I find frustrating is that the broad sweep of evidence for evolution is avoided in favor of focusing in on specific, isolated details in an attempt to refute them individually. This approach fosters the misleading impression that evolution, as a theory, stands or falls on the interpretation of small experimental details. In reality, evolution as a theory is supported by a vast array of data from many independent fields, and any attempt to refute evolution will fail scientifically unless it addresses that vast array. As such, Christian anti-evolutionary approaches do not offer a significant scientific challenge to evolution. Rather, they merely create an impression of evolution that does not do justice to its true

s
>
>
>
> trength."
>
>
>
> Venema seems to be able to explain the evidence for evolution quite clearly for the layman. He also has a good understanding of creationist thinking.
>
>
>
> Mark

How about Creator thinking....?