Why outlaw teaching evolution?
Riley M. Sinder
----------------------
[[What would be a rational standard for identifying the religion
that must be banned from teaching in public science classes?
Evolutionism would be a likely religion to ban since such dogmas
as the common descent of people from bacteria have never
been demonstrated.
Similarly, creationism would be a likely religion to ban--except
by all empirical evidence the Creator is not a supernatural
creature, but only and purely natural.]]
cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> writes:
>why should either origin of life theory be taught? we can never know
>how life of earth began, so the confusion that we risk is that children
>believe that science is limitless.
======================
But science IS limitless. There is no end to the fiction
that it can postulate as fact. Just draw lines between
serpents and birds. You have postulated common descent.
And the line, readily apparent on the page, serves as your fact.
Children should be warned at an early age that science is limitless.
--
Riley M. Sinder red...@netcom.com
Jim Sarbeck
In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M.
Sinder) wrote:
: Children should be warned at an early age that science is limitless.
Riley, you are in danger of having a constant named after you. The Riley:
a measure of immovability. Value = infinity.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Brian F. King
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> ----------------------
>
> [[What would be a rational standard for identifying the religion
> that must be banned from teaching in public science classes?
The rational standard (as chosen by the authors of the U.S.
Constitution)
would be to let the Supreme Court determine what was and was not a
religion
and decide from there what dogmas the public treasury would support...
> Evolutionism would be a likely religion to ban since such dogmas
> as the common descent of people from bacteria have never
> been demonstrated.
>
> Similarly, creationism would be a likely religion to ban--except
> by all empirical evidence the Creator is not a supernatural
> creature, but only and purely natural.]]
1. By all empirical (by your use of the word) evidence,
the Creator does not exist in the material world.
Thus, how is He "natural" - i.e. "of nature"?
2. By the common definitions of that non-existant Creator, if He DID
manifest himself in the material world, his abilities would break all
laws of physics and nature and reality; He would therefore have to be
classified as supernatural, no?
[Note: feel free to replace He in these sentences with She, It, or
They...
(although YOU selected the masculine singular term "Creator")]
Now would you please tell me what the Creator's supernaturality or
lack
thereof has to do with keeping Him from the classroom?
Or are you of the religion that supernatural things SHOULD be banned
from
the science classroom, regardless of whether or not they exist?
> cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> writes:
>
> >why should either origin of life theory be taught? we can never know
> >how life of earth began, so the confusion that we risk is that children
> >believe that science is limitless.
>
> ======================
>
> But science IS limitless. There is no end to the fiction
> that it can postulate as fact. Just draw lines between
> serpents and birds. You have postulated common descent.
>
> And the line, readily apparent on the page, serves as your fact.
>
> Children should be warned at an early age that science is limitless.
As is ignorance.
Lizard
> 1. By all empirical (by your use of the word) evidence,
> the Creator does not exist in the material world.
> Thus, how is He "natural" - i.e. "of nature"?
The relational operators by which you equate "material" and "natural" are
unclear. However, being "of nature" is not the exclusive means by which
something could be considered natural. If "God" created "nature", then
"nature" is of, as it were, sourced from, "God". If "God" is the source of
"Nature", then "God" has natural characteristics, and is "natural".
> 2. By the common definitions of that non-existant Creator, if He DID
> manifest himself in the material world, his abilities would break all
> laws of physics and nature and reality; He would therefore have to be
> classified as supernatural, no?
We do not know this [that the "Creator's" appearance/abilities" would break
any laws] because we do not know all the laws of physics, nor do we
completely understand the laws of which we are able to describe in human
terms. Our understandings of physics, quantam mechanics, and indeed simple
newtonian behaviors, are infantile, albeit rapidly advancing at exponential
rates.
> [Note: feel free to replace He in these sentences with She, It, or
> They...
> (although YOU selected the masculine singular term "Creator")]
Yep. It seems right. We hold onto this misnomer that god is a man, or is
even sexless, much the same way we continue to propagate the belief that
Mary was a "Virgin" in sexual terms, and that Jesus was a blue eyed
cuacasian, when evidence supports that he was a black dude.
> > >why should either origin of life theory be taught? we can never know
> > >how life of earth began, so the confusion that we risk is that
children
> > >believe that science is limitless.
And to address that statement, science is limitless. Our understanding and
application is finite in terms of how long it will take.
> > But science IS limitless. There is no end to the fiction
> > that it can postulate as fact. Just draw lines between
> > serpents and birds. You have postulated common descent.
> > Children should be warned at an early age that science is limitless.
>
> As is ignorance.
And the number of ingnoramuses who are willing to stifle education of
princeaples that they can not agree on, instead of allowing the children to
decide the truth for themselves. Aberrated Christianity has festered for
nearly two millenia. The truth of religeon is stifled by those who hold
misinterpretations as policy, and by those who would seek to suppress
religeon altogether for ontological pursuits.
Now dammit, kiss and make up.
__________________________________________________________
| 1989 Ford Taurus GL |
| Rockford Fosgate, /////Alpine, Kenwood, JBL, Dented |
| Fender, Cracked Windshield, Defective Fuel Pump, No |
| A/C, Busted Seat Support, Worn Shocks, Struts, Springs,|
| and I still owe $2500. |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Del
>----------------------
>
> [[What would be a rational standard for identifying the religion
> that must be banned from teaching in public science classes?
But Rile, we already know that any standard you don't
like is automatically disqualified as "irrational"!
>
> Evolutionism
I think you mean "evolution," right?
> would be a likely religion to ban since such dogmas
Tsk tsk! Two question-begging epithets in the same
sentence fragment! Do you know what reliance on such
rhetorical crutches indicates?
> as the common descent of people from bacteria have never
> been demonstrated.
demonstrate (d mýen-str‰t«) verb
demonstrated, demonstrating, demonstrates verb, transitive
1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her
skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging.
2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove:
demonstrate a proposition.
3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application;
explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with
laboratory equipment.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
Copyright © 1992
---
It looks like you're wrong, Rile! Or perhaps right in
the same sense that the Pope was right when he said
that heliocentricity has never been demonstrated.
>
> Similarly, creationism would be a likely religion to ban--except
> by all empirical evidence the Creator is not a supernatural
> creature, but only and purely natural.]]
"If anyone shall set the authority of
Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows
not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the
meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather
his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has
found in himself and imagines to be there."
Do you know who said that?
>
>cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> writes:
>
>>why should either origin of life theory be taught? we can never know
>>how life of earth began, so the confusion that we risk is that
children
>>believe that science is limitless.
>
>======================
>
>But science IS limitless.
Then logically science has every right to outlaw
creationismism and to promptly punish prosaic perps.
right?
There is no end to the fiction
>that it can postulate as fact.
Wait a minute! It this your _expert_ opinion?
Now come on Rile! Don't try to kid a kidder. Scientific
facts have certain characteristics. Do you know what
they are?? You do??? Well why don't you share them with
the rest of the class? Hmmmm? You're not
CHICKEN
are ya?
I dare you!! Come on.
Cock-a-doodle?
Just draw lines between
>serpents and birds. You have postulated common descent.
Huh. Yeah that is so easy to do - why do you suppose
such postulation never occurred then? I bet I know why!
Because theories of evolution have consistently made
risky predictions that have been so gosh darned (pardon
me) accurate and successful!
And don't think I don't appreciate it when I read some
of your stuff. I think "There but for fortune go I or
some other rational person."
>
>And the line, readily apparent on the page, serves as your fact.
Really?? Ah ..... NAAAAAAAAA! That's not true RMS. That
is a falsehood!! I want you to do the honorable thing
and retract that statement and apologize to the class
for your impetuousness. 'K?
>Children should be warned at an early age that science is limitless.
Even if it is not true?
>
" From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that,
since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves
or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or
extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or
off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for
us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of
the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named,
that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in
the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to
teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal
(that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is
obligatory to take sides on them, and that one belief is required by
faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical
and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy
Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does
concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from
an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the
Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven
goes."
--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net
Gi...@thelooney.bin
On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:08:44 -0700, jfa...@earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M.
>Sinder) wrote:
>
>>----------------------
>>
>> [[What would be a rational standard for identifying the religion
>> that must be banned from teaching in public science classes?
>
>But Rile, we already know that any standard you don't
>like is automatically disqualified as "irrational"!
>
>>
>> Evolutionism
>
>I think you mean "evolution," right?
>
>
> > would be a likely religion to ban since such dogmas
>
>Tsk tsk! Two question-begging epithets in the same
>sentence fragment! Do you know what reliance on such
>rhetorical crutches indicates?
>
>
>
>> as the common descent of people from bacteria have never
>> been demonstrated.
>
>demonstrate (d?myen-str?t") verb
>demonstrated, demonstrating, demonstrates verb, transitive
>1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her
>skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging.
>2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove:
>demonstrate a proposition.
>3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application;
>explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with
>laboratory equipment.
>
>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>Copyright ? 1992
May I join the fray.
Concerning Evolution, I'm no rocket scientist, but.... Where may I ask
is "any" proof what so ever, that anyone or anything has ever "Evolved" In the
animal kingdom or mans world? Is there one shred of proof; any bones? Anything
that can be pointed out to be in the process of evolution? What, no intermediate
transitions to be found. Nope. Why? Because evolution is a hypothesist clothed
in sheeps' clothing as the truth. Hypothesis is not fact or truth, but a tool to
"Think" what might be the answer without empirical facts, an assumption.
Here is some empirical scientific facts that point more to the existence
of a Creator then to hap hazard circumstances, or evolution.
The Earth's axis is precisely 23.5 degrees off of center, this gives us
seasons, without that, No food growth. The sun is 93 million miles away, any
closer water would vaporize, any further away, water would be frozen, nothing
living on this planet can survive without liquid water. The moon is the exact
size and distance to keep the Earths' rotation stable and not wobble as the
other planets in our solar system do. Jupiter is of the correct size and mass to
prevent the Earth from being pelted to death by asteroids and keep us in the
continual and correct orbit around the sun. There is more than meets the eye to
the existence of man on this little ball of mud. It "was" designed to support
Human life and no other reason. That is unless you hold to the latest ,Uhm,
hypothesis from the evolutionist; That we were left here from some aliens that
visited, maybe we were in their waste disposal units and just dumped here, how
rude, and the E.P.A. will be having a stern talk with them should they ever
return to mess up the environment again. Not very advanced if you ask me.
Secondly, There "Is" plenty of proof of the existence of Christ and his
life, not just from the religious side, the Bible, but from many other cultures
that have nothing but contempt for Christianity or Judaism. The Bible on the
other hand "has" been proven factually and historically correct by many set out
to disprove it on many points.
So if your going to say that something taught in a classroom should be
based on facts proven to be true and not supposition or hypothesis, you will
have to agree that the Bible is the one of the two to be taught.
So in the interest of keeping with these news groups topics:
Clinton Sucks!
Gizmo
Death to the United Nations and all who Worship the "Beast"
(alt.politics.usa.republican)
Rev. Chuck
Bill Reid wrote:
>
> In article <33F18F...@uci.edu>, yan...@uci.edu wrote:
>
> >Riley M. Sinder wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> >If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
> >>
> >> >Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
> >
> >
> >I always thought that nuclear energy was derived from that equation, or
> >am I wrong?
> >
> >
> >> What this country needs is a good five-cent prayer
> >> to begin each and every biology class.
> >
> >
> >ever see the Snickers commercial where the football coach has a
> >religious ceremony being performed by people fo different religion?
> >there wouldn't be enought time to teach bio...
>
> THAT'S what they want!
But won't they have to suppress the Ammunist creation story? Sure would make one weird
holiday presentation.
Bill Reid
Ted Holden
Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
a bad idea. It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. To paraphrase
Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
schoolkids.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
yang hu
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
>
> >If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
>
> >Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
I always thought that nuclear energy was derived from that equation, or
am I wrong?
> What this country needs is a good five-cent prayer
> to begin each and every biology class.
ever see the Snickers commercial where the football coach has a
religious ceremony being performed by people fo different religion?
there wouldn't be enought time to teach bio...
Yang
#28
Del
In article <33f1ba57...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) wrote:
> To paraphrase
>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
>schoolkids.
One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from
someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid
shit" to crippling excess.
Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's
above presumption of co-ownership of your children?
>Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
>(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
>details),
Before you do, folks, visit:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and
deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution.
Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about,
and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply
because he thought it was "beastly stupid"?
These are not the actions of someone motivated by a
love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus.
and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
>taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
>a bad idea.
Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that
tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know
evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is
observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying
principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out
of you (as your considerable energies expended toward
censorship amply demonstrate).
It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
>stupid idea to be adopted by our schools.
Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be
instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that
this statement begs the question as well - another
logical fallacy.
There are 120 million pigeons in the United States -
100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people
who believe in creation "science."
Jim Sarbeck
: Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
: (see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
: details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
: taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
: a bad idea....
Like these currently taught in the U.S. education system:
1. Believe people who society certifies as "experts".
2. Teaching is not worth more than semiskilled labor.
3. It is not important to learn to be a wise consumer.
4. The dollar sign is the symbol of accepted religion.
5. Withholding belief is not an option.
others?
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
jer...@creighton.edu
Oulaw teaching math because it is beastly stupid shit. Outlaw teaching
english because it is beastly stupid shit. After a while or this, schools
would teach nothing. You have to provide damn good reasons for not
teaching a subject.
We will also stop teaching other subjects that you dont like. Please
E-Mail us and tell which ones you dont like and those subjects will no
longer we taught in schools.
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Del wrote:
> In article <33f1ba57...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
> (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
> > To paraphrase
> >Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
> >beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
> >of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
> >schoolkids.
>
> One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from
> someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid
> shit" to crippling excess.
>
> Question to parents: were you disturbed by Ted's
> above presumption of co-ownership of your children?
>
> >Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
> >(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
> >details),
>
> Before you do, folks, visit:
>
> http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
>
> ....and see an amusing compendium of Ted Holden LIES and
> deceitful misquotation on the subject of evolution.
>
> Then ask yourself: why would someone both lie about,
> and wish to outlaw the teaching of, something simply
> because he thought it was "beastly stupid"?
>
> These are not the actions of someone motivated by a
> love of truth - as Theodore implies is his impetus.
>
> and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
> >taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
> >a bad idea.
>
> Teaching a bad idea is a bad idea? Thank you for that
> tautological nothing burger Ted. But as you know
> evolution is not a doctrine, stupid or otherwise. It is
> observed fact, brilliant theory, AND the unifying
> principle of biology - all of which scare the shit out
> of you (as your considerable energies expended toward
> censorship amply demonstrate).
>
> It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
> >stupid idea to be adopted by our schools.
>
> Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. It might be
> instructive to point out (though hardly necessary) that
> this statement begs the question as well - another
> logical fallacy.
>
>
>
>
> There are 120 million pigeons in the United States -
> 100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people
> who believe in creation "science."
>
Riley M. Sinder
------------------------------
mocpl...@aol.com (MoCplSkFml) writes:
>What I want to know, is: Why are we taught theory?
>If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
>Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
>IT'S THEORY.
>It hasn't been proved, so don't fill our minds with bullshit!
===============================
What this country needs is a good five-cent prayer
to begin each and every biology class.
That would nicely balance all the theory and leave
plenty of room for all the facts you want.
What facts are your favorite, by the way?
Bill Reid
>Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
>(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
>details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
>taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
>a bad idea. It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
>stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. To paraphrase
>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
>schoolkids.
It's "beastly stupid"? I can't even tell when something's plain old
"stupid" and when it's not, and now you throw in an xtra modifier on me.
Dang.
Stix
Del posted the following to alt.atheism:
(political groups snipped)
>Ted - idiot - Holden wrote [re evolution]:
>
>> To paraphrase
>>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
>>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
>>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
>>schoolkids.
>
>One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from
>someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid
>shit" to crippling excess.
BIG time!
<snip>
>There are 120 million pigeons in the United States -
>100 million of them are birds, and the rest are people
>who believe in creation "science."
Heh heh - that's not even the worst of it as far as Ted the babbling idiot
Holden goes. He's a Veilokov....Veilkov....Veil.... that idiot who said
Venus was once a comet - ist!!
Quick! A real live Velio..whateverist! Get a photo!
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Riley M. Sinder
------------------------------
[[What kind of speculations should be banned from science
classes?]]
>> >If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
>> >Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
yang hu <yan...@uci.edu> writes:
>I always thought that nuclear energy was derived from that equation, or
>am I wrong?
====================================
Good point.
E=mc^2 can be demonstrated repeatably any day of the week.
In contrast, the central dogmas of evolutionism have
never been demonstrated. And apparently are theoretically
impossible to demonstrate--since the hypothetical processes
are so slow--compared to real time.
Ted Holden
On 13 Aug 1997 14:48:43 GMT, br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
>In article <33f1ba57...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
>(Ted Holden) wrote:
>
>>Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
>>(see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
>>details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
>>taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
>>a bad idea. It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
>>stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. To paraphrase
>>Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
>>beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
>>of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
>>schoolkids.
>It's "beastly stupid"?
It was known even in Darwin's time that the fossil record did not
support gradual change amongst differing kinds of animals and
all further investigation has only confirmed that fact, hence
Darwinism has been abandoned in academic circles. The quasi
official replacement at this point is the Gould/Eldredge Punc-Eek
theory.
Gould and Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibria is
an attempt to resolve two basic problems, i.e. the lack of
intermediate fossils, and the Haldane dilemma. I have noted that
Punc-eek is a pure pseudoscience since it claims to be validated by a
lack of evidence rather than by evidence, it claims that inbreeding is
the most major cause of genetic advancement (you can't get stupider
than that), it requires a perpetual victory of the tiny peripheral
groups over vastly larger herds of animals which is like requiring
Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and
it also requires an eternal victory of animals adapted to a specific
localized condition over animals which are globally adapted, which
never happens in real life either.
That's pretty stupid.
Riley M. Sinder
--------------------------------
>>> What this country needs is a good five-cent prayer
>>> to begin each and every biology class.
-----
>>ever see the Snickers commercial where the football coach has a
>>religious ceremony being performed by people of different religions?
>>there wouldn't be enough time to teach biology.
br...@din.com (Bill Reid) writes:
>THAT'S what they want!
=============================================
The two religions competing would be satisfied
if they could ban the other from the science class.
The neutral observers would be satisfied if the
law would treat all religions by the same secular standard.
Bill Reid
In article <33f2fa3f...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) wrote:
Being somewhat aquainted with Gould's ambience (not personally), I'd guess
p.e.'s rather more validated via the larger context of evidence, i.e., the
rock record. Not a "pseudoscience" so much as a means of explaining
evidence.
>it claims that inbreeding is
>the most major cause of genetic advancement (you can't get stupider
>than that), it requires a perpetual victory of the tiny peripheral
>groups over vastly larger herds of animals which is like requiring
>Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and
>it also requires an eternal victory of animals adapted to a specific
>localized condition over animals which are globally adapted, which
>never happens in real life either.
I don't know about the genetic stuff--so you can just lie to me outright
re that--but the part about adapting to environmental changes always made
sense to me. How do you explain evolution? Do you have a better theory?
>That's pretty stupid.
Is that different now, from "beastly" so? :)
no...@nowhere.nospam
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> The two religions competing would be satisfied
> if they could ban the other from the science class.
Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
*religion* out of *science* class.
Ted Holden
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 03:01:59 GMT, stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix)
wrote:
>>One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from
>>someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid
>>shit" to crippling excess.
>
>BIG time!.....
I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots since
comprehending the subject requires more reading than idiots can
manage. I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
and that and all of the linked sites will have to suffice.
Stix
Ted Holden posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Stix wrote:
>>>One should not quickly dismiss these words, coming as they do from
>>>someone who clearly bears the scars of believing "really stupid
>>>shit" to crippling excess.
>>
>>BIG time!.....
>
>I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots
OH HO HO!! I just loooooove the juxtaposition of the concepts in that
sentence! Let's look them again just coz they're so cute:
"I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots."
ROTFL!!
"Did the Earth stand still for you too, darling?"
>since comprehending the subject requires
....a fucking good imagination!
> more reading than idiots can manage.
....more massaging of reality too.
> I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at:
<snip>
Who cares, poindexter, you're a known moron.
Who rattled your cage anyway? I was talking about you, not to you.
al_klein
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:43:36 -0700, yang hu <yan...@uci.edu> wrote:
>Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>> >If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
>> >Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
>I always thought that nuclear energy was derived from that equation, or
>am I wrong?
No, you're right. But it's still a theory. A theory that works.
Like the Theory of Evolution.
--
Al
Real email address:
akl...@villagenet.com
al_klein
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:42:55 GMT, med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
wrote:
>I no longer debate Velikovskian catastrophism with idiots since
>comprehending the subject requires more reading than idiots can
>manage. I've put what I have to say on the subject on the www at:
>http://access.digex.com/~medved/Catastrophism.html
Oh, goodie - less spam for us.
BTW, godboy, sigs are, by long usage, limited to 3 lines. Three as in
1, 2, 3, not by biblical math.
---
Al
Theists posting off-charter bullshit to alt.atheism will be treated according to the Golden Rule.
al_klein
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:07:13 GMT, Gi...@TheLooney.Bin
(Gi...@TheLooney.Bin) wrote:
> Concerning Evolution, I'm no rocket scientist, but.... Where may I ask
>is "any" proof what so ever, that anyone or anything has ever "Evolved" In the
>animal kingdom or mans world? Is there one shred of proof; any bones?
There used to be a bacterium (tuberculin bacillus) that succumbed to
penicillin. Now, it's quite immune to it.
There used to be a virus known as SIV, which had no effect on man.
There's now a variant of this virus (another species) known as HIV.
It didn't exist before.
That's 2 more-than-shreds of proof.
And micro-organisms don't have bones so, sorry, but no bones.
> Anything that can be pointed out to be in the process of evolution?
EVERYTHING is in the process of evolving from what it is into what it
will be.
>What, no intermediate transitions to be found.
homo Sapiens. We're transitional between our ancestors and our
descendants.
>Because evolution is a hypothesist clothed
>in sheeps' clothing as the truth. Hypothesis is not fact or truth, but a tool to
>"Think" what might be the answer without empirical facts, an assumption.
An hypotheses is. Evolution is observed fact (see above). And there
are theories - hypotheses backed by observed facts and predictions
that worked - to explain the how and why of it, known as theories of
evolution.
>Here is some empirical scientific facts that point more to the existence
>of a Creator then to hap hazard circumstances, or evolution.
>The Earth's axis is precisely 23.5 degrees off of center, this gives us
>seasons, without that, No food growth.
Anything to back up this assertion? No? I didn't think so.
BTW, it the axis were 25 degrees "off center", or 20 degrees, we'd
still have seasons.
>The sun is 93 million miles away, any
>closer water would vaporize, any further away, water would be frozen, nothing
>living on this planet can survive without liquid water.
Correct. But why? Because it evolved IN THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID
WATER. If it had evolved in the presence of liquid methane, what
difference would it have made? Except that water ice would be a
structural material.
>The moon is the exact
>size and distance to keep the Earths' rotation stable and not wobble as the
>other planets in our solar system do.
Oh? Some new discovery?
>Jupiter is of the correct size and mass to
>prevent the Earth from being pelted to death by asteroids
Something else I've missed?
> and keep us in the continual and correct orbit around the sun.
Wait - I have to catch my breath - this much laughter could prove to
be fatal.
>There is more than meets the eye to
>the existence of man on this little ball of mud. It "was" designed to support
>Human life and no other reason.
Another one looking in the large end of the telescope.
>That is unless you hold to the latest ,Uhm,
>hypothesis from the evolutionist; That we were left here from some aliens that
>visited, maybe we were in their waste disposal units and just dumped here, how
>rude, and the E.P.A. will be having a stern talk with them should they ever
>return to mess up the environment again. Not very advanced if you ask me.
Not very indicative of sanity on your part either. Care to document
this, or would you rather retract it? Those ARE your only 2 choices
on usenet, you know.
>Secondly
Secondly? How about some of your "empirical scientific facts that
point more to the existence of a Creator then to hap hazard [sic]
circumstances, or evolution"?
>There "Is" plenty of proof of the existence of Christ and his
>life, not just from the religious side, the Bible, but from many other cultures
>that have nothing but contempt for Christianity or Judaism.
Such as?
>The Bible on the other hand "has" been proven factually and historically correct by many set out
>to disprove it on many points.
Documentation? Or retraction?
If you stay on usenet for a while, or check DejaNews, you'll find that
everything you've said is tiresome old hat and has been refuted many
times.
[political newsgroups snipped]
al_klein
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 03:02:05 GMT, med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
wrote:
>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms
>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and
>selection require.
If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense.
But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as
many as you'd like.
>Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated
>by this lack of evidence.
P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth
of intermediates.
>There really is not a dime's worth of
>difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft.
There really is not a dime's worth of difference between your
understanding of science and the fact of witchcraft. Neither exists.
>There's no more possibility of falsifying punc-eek
There are a few ways. Finding intermediates for all transitions would
be one. Of course aleph-one fossils would take up a lot of space.
>Evolution by definition means gradualistic change
Evolution by definition means change in alele frequency in a
population.
As I said, there's a lot you don't understand.
>Any theory at all would be better; you literally could not do worse.
Except to postulate that the Magik Space Pixie(tm) didit, didit,
didit.
>Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero probability
>events.
Evolution requires an essentially almost infinite number of almost
zero probability events. So does being alive. What are the odds that
EXACTLY you would be alive NOW? AND be able to speak English? Almost
infinity to one? Or infinity to one? So I guess you don't exist.
>That's infinitely stupid;
So is believing that you, in your exact form, exist.
>the odds against anything like
>that happening may in fact not only be infinite, but uncountably
>infinite, i.e. the cardinality of those odds may in fact be that of
>the real numbers rather than merely that of integers.
The odds of that happening while you watch it are none to negative.
The odds of it happening at all are - well, it HAS been observed, so
the probability is 1. Same as your existence.
>Any religion, any philosophy, any form of idolatry or devil-worship,
>or anything at all would be an improvement.
Over observed fact? Believe that you come to usenet via witchcraft,
as opposed to via reality?
>I personally see the evidence as indicating that life forms used to be
>created from time to time and also re-engineered from time to time by
>some sort of an intelligent process
SIV became HIV thru an intelligent process? You are exactly what you
are thru an intelligent process?
OK, I do agree - virii ARE a bit more intelligent than you are.
Charles W. Johnson
As yang hu <yan...@uci.edu> put it on Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:43:36 -0700,
> > >If it isn't fact, then don't even mention it.
> > >Like the theory of relativity. E=MCsquared.
> I always thought that nuclear energy was derived from that equation, or
> am I wrong?
The relation of mass and energy by the equation E=mc^2 (I know this isn't
the full expansion, but it's easy to remember <g>) explains the energy
output of nuclear reactions: after the reaction is over, there is a certain
amount of missing mass. The corresponding energy output is in the relation
E=mc^2. The relationship also explains other reactions where matter is
converted into energy [or vice versa], like matter-antimatter annihilation.
--
[Charles W. Johnson <cw...@eskimo.com> - http://www.eskimo.com/~cwj2]
| Heathen@Undernet (there is a Heathen@Dalnet. I am not he.) |
|<BriceW:#atheism> Is this where you gfo instaed of Church?! |
[ My opinions are mine alone. Duh. ]
Please Cc: responses to my mailbox and indicate in the message
that it has been both posted and mailed.
Ted Holden
On 14 Aug 1997 17:31:38 GMT, br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
>>Gould and Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibria is
>>an attempt to resolve two basic problems, i.e. the lack of
>>intermediate fossils, and the Haldane dilemma. I have noted that
>>Punc-eek is a pure pseudoscience since it claims to be validated by a
>>lack of evidence rather than by evidence,
>Being somewhat aquainted with Gould's ambience (not personally), I'd guess
>p.e.'s rather more validated via the larger context of evidence, i.e., the
>rock record. Not a "pseudoscience" so much as a means of explaining
>evidence.
The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms
which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and
selection require. Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated
by this lack of evidence. There really is not a dime's worth of
difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft.
There's no more possibility of falsifying punc-eek than there was of
proving there was no such thing as a witch, and that's your definition
of a pseudoscience.
>>it claims that inbreeding is
>>the most major cause of genetic advancement (you can't get stupider
>>than that), it requires a perpetual victory of the tiny peripheral
>>groups over vastly larger herds of animals which is like requiring
>>Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and
>>it also requires an eternal victory of animals adapted to a specific
>>localized condition over animals which are globally adapted, which
>>never happens in real life either.
>
>I don't know about the genetic stuff--so you can just lie to me outright
>re that--but the part about adapting to environmental changes always made
>sense to me.
>How do you explain evolution?
You don't have to. Evolution by definition means gradualistic change
and the fossil record clearly indicates that there is none of that in
existence to explain.
>Do you have a better theory?
Any theory at all would be better; you literally could not do worse.
Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero probability
events. That's infinitely stupid; the odds against anything like
that happening may in fact not only be infinite, but uncountably
infinite, i.e. the cardinality of those odds may in fact be that of
the real numbers rather than merely that of integers.
Any religion, any philosophy, any form of idolatry or devil-worship,
or anything at all would be an improvement.
I personally see the evidence as indicating that life forms used to be
created from time to time and also re-engineered from time to time by
some sort of an intelligent process which was active on our planet up
until about 4000 years ago or thereabouts, and which is no longer
active.
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
Evolutionism is to academia, what crack is to the ghetto.
Riley M. Sinder
-----------------------------------------
<jer...@creighton.edu> writes:
>Oulaw teaching math because it is beastly stupid shit. Outlaw teaching
>english because it is beastly stupid shit.
=================================
The ancient religions found it easy to ban the teaching
of what the majority voted to teach.
But there is no NON-religious reason to ban some teaching
that the majority of taxpayers select by vote.
What is the harm? Do you believe that speaking voodoo
causes harm? Then you believe in the power of voodoo.
And you are just another one of those ancient banning religions.
Riley M. Sinder
-----------------------------
[[The search for the Living God turns up newer and stranger
items each day.]]
Gi...@TheLooney.Bin (Gi...@TheLooney.Bin) writes:
> The Earth's axis is precisely 23.5 degrees off of center, this gives us
>seasons, without that, No food growth.
=========================
Are you sure about that?
No food growth?
Is this a new quantum effect?
Are you sure that, assuming your 23.5 degrees is optimum, the
food growth would not decrease smoothly to deathly small values
somewhere around 180-23.5 = 166.5?
Riley M. Sinder
--------------------------------------------------
med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>Punctuated Equilibria claims to both explain and be validated
>by the lack of evidence. There really is not a dime's worth of
>difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft.
>There's no more possibility of falsifying punc-eek than there was of
>proving there was no such thing as a witch.
=============================
Nevertheless, you can show that any particular woman or man
is not a witch. All you have to do is compare the measured
strengths and weaknesses of the particular woman or man
against the observed distribution of strengths
and weaknesses in the general population.
Likewise, you can show that any particular woman, man, or
other fossil is not an evolution or equilibrium, punctuated
or otherwise.
Riley M. Sinder
-------------------------
gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>In the surrounding area around Chernoble, the
>animals have actually altered their DNA structure to better resist the
>high radiation. The reporter called it a 'neccesary evolutionary step to
>maintain survival of the animal population'.
====================================
Oh THAT'S what you meant by "evolution"--finches giving
birth to only finches and mice giving birth to only mice.
However, that little demonstration does not show the
evolutionists' religious dogma of common descent.
Now if you had a movie of successive generations of Chornobyl
finches splitting into populations of mice and snakes--then you could
lift the evolutionists from their religious perch.
Riley M. Sinder
--------------------------
>> The two religions competing would be satisfied
>> if they could ban the other from the science class.
no...@nowhere.NOSPAM writes:
>Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
>*religion* out of *science* class.
================================
You would have a point if you could give a NON-religious
definition for the *religion* that you superstitiously fear.
Science could be defined as the observation, identification,
description, experimental investigation, and theoretical
explanation of phenomena.
THAT could be NON-religious because it does not depend
on what someone believes. THAT definition depends only on empirical
observations.
However, you have not been able to give a less superstitious
definition for *religion* than what religious people BELIEVE to
be a *religion* and hence you have only a religious
definition for the *religion* that you fear. You
are no further along toward enlightenment than the
one who fears the evil eye of the witch.
no...@nowhere.nospam
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> --------------------------
>
> >> The two religions competing would be satisfied
> >> if they could ban the other from the science class.
>
> no...@nowhere.NOSPAM writes:
>
> >Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
> >*religion* out of *science* class.
>
> ================================
>
> You would have a point if you could give a NON-religious
> definition for the *religion* that you superstitiously fear.
"I acted alone on God's orders."
[Yigal Amir, assassin of Yitzak Rabin, Israeli PM]
I don't fear Gawd, but I do fear the those who claim
to follow him. Superstion has power over those who
belief it and they are the ones I worry about.
That is a perfectly legitmate fear.
> Science could be defined as the observation, identification,
> description, experimental investigation, and theoretical
> explanation of phenomena.
>
> THAT could be NON-religious because it does not depend
> on what someone believes. THAT definition depends only on empirical
> observations.
>
> However, you have not been able to give a less superstitious
> definition for *religion* than what religious people BELIEVE to
> be a *religion* and hence you have only a religious
> definition for the *religion* that you fear. You
> are no further along toward enlightenment than the
> one who fears the evil eye of the witch.
I don't fear evil eye, I fear those who want teach
about witches in a *SCIENCE* class. Its not that
difficult to tell the difference between science
and religion. Why do you have such trouble?
Publius
In alt.fan.publius no...@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
: Riley M. Sinder wrote:
: > The two religions competing would be satisfied
: > if they could ban the other from the science class.
: Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
: *religion* out of *science* class.
Since Atheism is a Religion, (It has yet to "prove"
its dogmatic position that Life originated as the
result of some primordial chemical accident),
I don't object to its being discussed in our schools,
so long as it is discussed along with counter
concepts. The attitude of Atheists - if they had
the absolute power, as they did for a while in
Russia, would be the same as the Inquisitioners.
PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
Ted Holden
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
>>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms
>>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and
>>selection require.
>If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense.
Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have
a case based on evidence. Some such as Alexander Mebane would
start their list of missing intermediates with the case of the
cenozoic mammals, in which all of our basic mammal types simply
show up one day, fully formed.
I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed
that we are not descended from neanderthals because their dna was
about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves
nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the
planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal and
us, and that creature along with his works would have been found
by now if he had existed.
>But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as
>many as you'd like.
Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils. Practically
everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on
record one way or another to that effect. For example:
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means
of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties
for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence
of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate
forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."
David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil
gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between
major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even
in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic
accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127
"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it
on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make
a watertight argument."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89
"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically
be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have
in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life
form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has
retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics
throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat."
G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967
"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change
during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any
local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully
formed'."
Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have
existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth?" (p. 206)
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious
and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of
evolution)." (p. 292)
Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979
"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about
120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has
been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of
evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ...
some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil
record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America,
have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more
detailed information."
David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25
"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking
geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the
picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859.
Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of
fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of
250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard
scientific data should permit objective investigators
to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture
which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of
organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no
longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of
the fossil record."
Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is
now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes,
and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due
to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will
never be filled."
Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51
.................................................................................................
See what I mean, Al? Why don't you just come clean and admit
to all the people out there that evolutionists have been deluding
themselves all along with this thing about fossils? I mean, honesty
is the best policy...
>>Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated
>>by this lack of evidence.
>P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth
>of intermediates.
It claims that there were intermediates, and then proceeds to explain
why we can never find any, and then claims that the fact that we never
do find any is proof positive.
That's the same deal as witchcraft, Al. That's your basic definition
of a pseudoscience.
>>There really is not a dime's worth of
>>difference between that and Cotten Mather's conception of witchcraft.
>There really is not a dime's worth of difference between your
>understanding of science and the fact of witchcraft. Neither exists.
Come on, now Al. Trying to compensate for being a loser by being
a crybaby will strike most people as one of those ideas which, as
Mozart put it, don't really work. Why not opt for the direct solution
and simply cease being a loser?
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Rev. Chuck
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> [[Apparently, the evolutionists operate like
> the medieval religions in obtaining and enforcing
> legal bans against the teaching of opposing doctrines.]]
>
> >: > Evolutionism and creationism, as the two religions
> >: > competing, would be satisfied
> >: > if they could ban the other from the science class.
>
>
> >: Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
> >: *religion* out of *science* class.
>
>
> > Atheism is a Religion.
And bald is a hair color.
> At what point does atheism become a religion?
>
> When it argues against the other religions?
>
> When it provides a secular explanation of the universe?
Religion = secular?
> When it bans the teaching of other religious concepts in
> public schools?
Occasionally a glimmer of sunshine peeks through...
> > Atheism has yet to "prove"
> > its dogmatic position that Life originated as the
> > result of some primordial chemical accident.
The same theories are shared by theists and non-theists alike.
Life originated not by accident. By inevitablity. Read up on organic chemistry and how
each atom found in living molecules can only bond with a set number of other such atoms.
Carbon provides 4 bonding sites, nitrogen, 3, oxygen, 2, hydrogen, 1. What
energy input levels are necessary to dissociate and recombine precursor organic
molecules? Are they set, too? There's nothing random about it. Life's precursors are
found everywhere in the universe. Hydrogen, oxygen, cyanide, formaldehyde, methane,
water, amino acids.
[snip]
> Or do the atheists become dogmatic when they activate
> whatever flawed legal misconstructions they can muster
> to ban the teaching of opposing theories?
Is it _just_ the atheists who want science taught for science's sake?
[snip]
> As for any secular subject, the taxpayer majority should
> decide whatever wisdom or balderdash that kids are taught
> in the taxpayers' community.
Or the job market. It's a world economy now. U.S. standing in biotechnology is going
to important in the coming decades. Much of it cannot be understood without a grounding
in evolutionary theory. Take viral mutations, for example. Or how findings from animal
research can be more effectively applied to curing humans. Cancer. If religion makes
you feel happy, fine. It's not going to have any impact on your physical being while
you're still here, though. No more than, say, knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy.
Ted Holden
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:36:16 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del)
wrote:
>Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit.
>Creationist lies pulverized:
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
>
>And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of
>evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an
>achievment):
>
>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
>
>Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than
>Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity.
MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement
in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e.
For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them
firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists,
and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not
unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference
between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of
clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations...
and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying
in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as
ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence.
The kindest assumption one could make is that this represents some
sort of an inability to deal with simple logic on MacRae's part. For
instance, he starts off by noting ReMine's/my use of Gould quotes:
One of my standard posts includes a quote from S.J. Gould wrt (the
lack of) intermediate forms; the standard tribal reaction
of the t.o. crew is to claim that this quote is badly out of
context and (what's new) to call me a liar.
And then offering another quote from Gould which supposedly shows
all nonbelievers who would quote Gould to be liars:
"since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by
creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -
as admitting that the fossil record includes no
transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
species level but are abundant between larger
groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260).
MacRae does not bother to quote me when it isn't suitable to his
purposes, and this is obvious here since my reply to this statement
has been posted many times and he is assuredly familiar with it.
The claim that there are intermediates between "higher taxonomic
groups" is a cop-out and a sop to evolutionists AFTER Gould had
succeeded in removing the dead hand of Darwinism from the throat
of paleontology. The man is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Seeing intermediates between higher groups amounts to an exercise
in the use of imagination; it means that, for instance, you can look
at a microbe, a fish, and a man, and deduce that the fish is
intermediate between the microbe and the man. The other parts of
Gould's statements amount to (a) an admission that nowhere on the
planet is there any real fossil sequence showing one kind of animal
definitely turning into another and (b) an expression of anger that
people who he doesn't like would quote him.
The problem from the point of view of the evolutionists is that there
now exists a sufficient body of this kind of material in the
literature that the next judge who has to decide some sort of a major
case as to whether evolutionism continues its present free ride in our
education system would almost have to make positive efforts not to
stumble onto one of the sections of quotes. The page I hope he
stumbles onto would be the section of quote pages at:
http://206.152.255.5/user/sjackson/cosmos.htm
Against this overwhelming array of evidence, the BandarLog of
the evolutionist crews of t.o have been reduced to the sort of
pathetic reaction one observes on MacRae's page and in Del's
rantings, i.e. claiming that all such quotes are always taken out of
context and that the full context will always show that evolutionism
triumphs in the end despite all odds and all evidence. The psychology
behind this drive to label all nonbelievers as liars is examined at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/splifaq.htm
Again, one has to take Gould and Eldredge and their statements in
the context of their assinine theory. They take pains to destroy
Darwinism, and then attempt to replace it with something even more
stupid, if that's possible. Punc-eek claims to explain the total lack
of (real/species-level) intermediates in the fossil record and to be
validated BY that lack and, in that sense, punc-eek is a pure
pseudoscience just like witchcraft since the claim is validation by a
lack of evidence rather than by evidence. It claims that inbreeding
is the most major cause of genetic success and advancement, which
is patently idiotic. It requires an eternal victory of miniscule
groups of animals over vastly larger herds, which is like requiring
Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years, and
it requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to
localized conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which
never happens in real life either.
Within that larger context, one observes how truly pathetic MacRae's
attempted use of Gould's little "I hate it when creationists quote me"
quote really is.
Del
In article <33f4e6be...@news.wco.com>, Here wrote:
> May I join the fray.
"Join in" yeah right. You're a hit and run fundy. I can
smell it. I'm betting you don't have the courage of
your convictions, pal.
> Concerning Evolution, I'm no rocket scientist, but.... Where may I ask
>is "any" proof what so ever, that anyone or anything has ever "Evolved" In the
>animal kingdom or mans world?
Science doesn't deal in "proof." Never has. However the
amount of evidence for evolution is enormous, just mind
boggling. To answer your question - yes. Speciation -
the evolution of new species - has been witnessed many
times. Sorry to bitterly disappoint you.
Is there one shred of proof; any bones? Anything
>that can be pointed out to be in the process of evolution?
How could bones be in the process of evolution? Otherwise
your question is a straw man.
What, no intermediate
>transitions to be found. Nope.
Who told you that lie? Do you want the (partial) list
of transitional forms? The first half is about 30 pages
long. I think I'll just go ahead and send it to you
anyway.
Why? Because evolution is a hypothesist [sic] clothed
>in sheeps' clothing as the truth. Hypothesis is not fact or truth, but a
tool to
>"Think" what might be the answer without empirical facts, an assumption.
You don't know what you are talking about. Evolution is
both a fact and a theory - a theory every bit as
scientifically solid as the theory of gravity. Do you
want me to prove that you are uninformed on the
subject? Here you go: tell us the simple, one sentence
definition of evolution - the one used in biology. I
would be pleased if you proved me wrong by knowing the
answer but I am sure you don't. If I am right then you
don't even know what you are attacking - demonstrating
my point that you don't know what you are talking
about.
> Here is some empirical scientific facts that point more to the existence
>of a Creator then to hap hazard circumstances, or evolution.
You'll have to show why anyone should accept your
assertion that your conclusion is true. Just saying
"this proves it" doesn't prove it.
[ phony "proof" omitted ]
There is more than meets the eye to
>the existence of man on this little ball of mud. It "was" designed to support
>Human life and no other reason.
Really! Is that why there are so many different species
of cockroaches?
That is unless you hold to the latest ,Uhm,
>hypothesis from the evolutionist;
Again you don't have a clue as to what you are talking
about.
> Secondly, There "Is" plenty of proof of the existence of Christ and his
>life,
Baloney. Do you have any kind of evidence at all for
the things you say?
> not just from the religious side, the Bible, but from many other cultures
>that have nothing but contempt for Christianity or Judaism.
We await your evidence for this with bated breath.
The Bible on the
>other hand "has" been proven factually and historically correct by many set out
>to disprove it on many points.
In that case you must also believe in the ascension of
Augustus Caesar into heaven since at least one
historically accurate tome of the day said the entire
Roman Senate witnessed and testified to this
occurrence. (Oh, oh! Watch as the Christian double
standards kick in!)
> So if your going to say that something taught in a classroom should be
>based on facts proven to be true and not supposition or hypothesis, you will
>have to agree that the Bible is the one of the two to be taught.
("one of the two" what?) Actually you would first have
to make a viable argument to that effect (sorry. I know
you expect special treatment). It might also help if
you learned a bit about science - especially the
definitions of words like theory, fact, hypothesis, and
evolution. I predict you won't, however. You are afraid
to - especially WRT the def of evolution. Your failure
to learn it will prove my point.
--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net
Del
In article <33f4e6be...@news.wco.com>, Here wrote:
> So in the interest of keeping with these news groups topics:
>
> Clinton Sucks!
You just get done touting the Bible and here you go
violating it blatantly:
"To obey is better than sacrifice. For rebellion is as
the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry"
1 Samuel 15:22,23
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every
authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as
the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by
him to punish those who do wrong... it is God's will...
fear God, honor the king." I Peter 2:13-17
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except that
which God has established. The authorities that exist
have been established by God. Consequently, he who
rebels against the authority is rebelling against what
God has instituted, and those who do so will bring
judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2
"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the
authorities, not only because of possible punishment
but also because of conscience. This is also why you
pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who
give their full time to governing." Romans 13:5-6
Jeeze what a hypocrite!
> Gizmo
>Death to the United Nations and all who Worship the "Beast"
Another example of Christian "love."
Del
Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit.
Creationist lies pulverized:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of
evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an
achievment):
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than
Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity.
In article <33f602a0...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
(Ted Holden) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
>
>>>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms
>>>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and
>>>selection require.
>
>>If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense.
>
>Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have
>a case based on evidence.
Ironic, then, that Theodore proceeds to post a whole string of
straw men, isn't it? What a loser. Sheesh.
Some such as Alexander Mebane would
>start their list of missing intermediates with the case of the
>cenozoic mammals, in which all of our basic mammal types simply
>show up one day, fully formed.
>
>I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed
>that we are not descended from neanderthals [sic] because their dna was
>about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves
>nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the
>planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal [sic] and us,
I think you'd qualify Theodore.
>>But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as
>>many as you'd like.
>
>Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils.
There are thousands of them, buddy boy.
Practically
>everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on
>record one way or another to that effect.
For a list of transitionals about 60 pages long go to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means
>of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties
>for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence
>of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate
>forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."
What a lying bone head you are Theodore! Where is the rest of
the quote? Post it, Theodore. I dare you, you little weenie!
>
>"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between
>major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even
>in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
>cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic
>accounts of evolution."
>
> Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
> Paleontology, Harvard University
> "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
> Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127
>"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict
>when they say there are no transitional fossils
Yes, especially when Gould and the American Museum people
don't say anything of the kind!
[...]
>
>"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent
>with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change
>during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
>much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any
>local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
>transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully
>formed'."
>
> Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
> Paleontology, Harvard University
> Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977
>
>"But, as by this theory
What theory is that Ted? Is there some reason you left
that part of the quote out?
innumerable transitional forms must have
>existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
>crust of the earth?" (p. 206)
Did anyone ever tell you what a lying piece of
shit you are, Theodore?
[...]
>
>See what I mean, Al?
We sure do! You are a dishonest douche bag. Every
single quote by a true scientist you offered here -
every single one - was taken out of context. And
let there be no mistake as to what I mean by "taken
out of context." I mean you purposely edited the
quotes in order to change the authors actual and
intended meaning. Why don't you prove me wrong
by supplying the context you left out
Theodore? I predict that there is not THE
SLIGHTEST chance that you will have the balls to
fill in the context of your quotes. This will be the
smoking gun of your dishonesty.
If you even have the balls to respond to this, which
is doubtful, I predict you will try to shift your burden
of proof to me - you make the claims and it is always
someone elses job to prove your wrong, isn't it Theodore?
You're not fooling anyone Theodore. You're not even
entertaining anyone.
Riley M. Sinder
----------------------------------
>>>In the surrounding area around Chernoble, the
>>>animals have actually altered their DNA structure to better resist the
>>>high radiation. The reporter called it a 'neccesary evolutionary step to
>>>maintain survival of the animal population'.
-----
>>Oh THAT'S what you meant by "evolution"--finches giving
>>birth to only finches and mice giving birth to only mice.
gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>The basic rule of evolution is steps! Not leaps from a mouse to a fox or
>ape.
Sure. And the basic rule of human locomotion is steps!
But a three-year-old walking around the block in steps does not
prove the feasibility of some undauntable astronaut
walking--sans vehicle--to the moon.
That some three-year-old can walk--sans vehicle--around
the block might provide a reasonable basis for a billion
dollar research project to SEE if some undauntable astronaut
could walk--sans vehicle--to the moon.
However, that some three-year-old can walk--sans vehicle--around
the block does NOT provide a reasonable basis for banning the
teaching of the theory that some Goddard spaceship is required to
get to the moon.
And the evolutionists have no reasonable basis for banning
the teaching of creationism or any other crackpot theory of origins
--unless the evolutionists can demonstrate breeding something other
than finches from finches and something other than mice
from mice.
Riley M. Sinder
-----------------------------
[[The evolutionists have only wishful thoughts to
justify their ban against the teaching of creationism in
science classes.]]
>>Evolution by definition means gradualistic change
>>and the fossil record clearly indicates that there is none of that in
>>existence to explain.
gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>Now wait a second. You have heard of the missing link right? Well, we have
>several types of homonids, and fossils for each. Each successive one
>better adapted than the one before it. Ask any anthropologist. The missing
>link is the link between homonids and apes (or anyother species). But just
>the half of the story we DO have is proof of evolution. If in nothing
>else, in human ancestors.
=======================================
Even if your homonid fossils lie on some hypothetical straight
line, you have no more proof that any of those fossils is a "link"
because you do not know which homonid gave birth to which--if
any--homonids.
Just because San Francisco, Saint Louis, and Washington DC lie on
a crooked straight line does not mean that Saint Louis was
a "link" between coasts. San Francisco may have descended
from the Cape of Good Hope. And Washington DC may have descended
from the gods of the ether.
Riley M. Sinder
---------------------------------
[[Apparently, the evolutionists operate like
the medieval religions in obtaining and enforcing
legal bans against the teaching of opposing doctrines.]]
>: > Evolutionism and creationism, as the two religions
>: > competing, would be satisfied
>: > if they could ban the other from the science class.
------
>: Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
>: *religion* out of *science* class.
PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius> writes:
> Atheism is a Religion.
At what point does atheism become a religion?
When it argues against the other religions?
When it provides a secular explanation of the universe?
When it bans the teaching of other religious concepts in
public schools?
> Atheism has yet to "prove"
> its dogmatic position that Life originated as the
> result of some primordial chemical accident.
What makes atheism "dogmatic" in its position?
Is it the emotion that atheists sometimes demonstrate
in arguing against the existence of Dog? Surely,
it is not just the emotionalism that makes the
atheists "dogmatic." For TV actors jack themselves up
to be emotional to sell AT&T long distance and surely you would not
call the TV actors "dogmatic."
Or do the atheists become dogmatic when they activate
whatever flawed legal misconstructions they can muster
to ban the teaching of opposing theories?
> I don't object to its being discussed in our schools,
> so long as it is discussed along with counter
> concepts.
Why should any counter concepts be discussed?
In any secular subject, the majority of taxpayers
can exclude whatever counter concepts they want from
the curriculum.
There is no rational reason to present counter concepts
in typing, literature, home economics, history, or the mechanics
of perfectly elastic billiard balls.
Why should any counter concepts regarding origins ever
be presented?
As for any secular subject, the taxpayer majority should
decide whatever wisdom or balderdash that kids are taught
in the taxpayers' community.
Jill and Carl
why waste time on any science education, end all public support for any
education!!
why waste taxpayers-money on non-scientific/reading/writing/math
education, end all non 3-r's and non-science education funding
Ted Holden
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:05:58 -0400, Jill and Carl <pum...@erols.com>
wrote:
Evolution is a pseudoscience and an ideological doctrine. Your
analogy is bogus and amounts to trying to force the ideological
doctrine in by hiding it behind the skirts of the real sciences.
Del
In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M.
Sinder) wrote:
Can you say "false analogy" boys and girls? We know RMS
can.
Del
>-------------------------
>
>gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>
>>In the surrounding area around Chernoble, the
>>animals have actually altered their DNA structure to better resist the
>>high radiation. The reporter called it a 'neccesary evolutionary step to
>>maintain survival of the animal population'.
>
>====================================
>
>Oh THAT'S what you meant by "evolution"--finches giving
>birth to only finches and mice giving birth to only mice.
Theistic anti-evolutionists are helpless without their
straw men (compare GSCOTT2's statement with Sinder's
fatuous straw man distortion of it.)
>However, that little demonstration does not show the
>evolutionists' religious dogma of common descent.
Another sophist's ploy: attack a statement for failing
to "show" what it was never intended to show.
>Now if you had a movie of successive generations of Chornobyl
>finches splitting into populations of mice and snakes--then you could
>lift the evolutionists from their religious perch.
Another straw man. Sinder demands proof for a claim
that evolution has never made. To Sinder anything is
better than facing the truth.
Del
In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder)
wrote:
>----------------------------------
Watch how Sinder avoids addressing the issue of his
straw man lie in the following. When GSCOTT2 points it
out to him ("The basic rule of evolution is steps! Not
leaps from...") Sinder concocts a false analogy that is
also a red herring ("Sure. And the basic rule of human
locomotion is steps! But a three-year-old walking...")
He continues with the false analogy, lying several
times more in the process:
>>>>In the surrounding area around Chernoble, the
>>>>animals have actually altered their DNA structure to better resist the
>>>>high radiation. The reporter called it a 'neccesary evolutionary step to
>>>>maintain survival of the animal population'.
>
>-----
>
>>>Oh THAT'S what you meant by "evolution"--finches giving
>>>birth to only finches and mice giving birth to only mice.
>
>
>gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>
>>The basic rule of evolution is steps! Not leaps from a mouse to a fox or
>>ape.
>Sure. And the basic rule of human locomotion is steps!
>But a three-year-old walking around the block in steps does not
>prove the feasibility of some undauntable astronaut
>walking--sans vehicle--to the moon.
>
>That some three-year-old can walk--sans vehicle--around
>the block might provide a reasonable basis for a billion
>dollar research project to SEE if some undauntable astronaut
>could walk--sans vehicle--to the moon.
>
>However, that some three-year-old can walk--sans vehicle--around
>the block does NOT provide a reasonable basis for banning the
>teaching of the theory that some Goddard spaceship is required to
>get to the moon.
>
>And the evolutionists have no reasonable basis for banning
>the teaching of creationism or any other crackpot theory of origins
>--unless the evolutionists can demonstrate breeding something other
>than finches from finches and something other than mice
>from mice.
>
>
>--
>Riley M. Sinder
red...@netcom.com
--
Therion Ware
Riley M. Sinder wrote:[snip]
I remember reading somewhere, maybe here, that this "person"
is a sociology project, or similar. If this is so, how much
does "he" cost to run, and is "he" a legal entity like a
corporation?
--
Rgds
TW
------ AntiSpam: swap "pandemonium.city_of_dis" for "geocities"
Hell is a City much like Dis, and it's Pandemonium,
"for why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------ ------
Visit the City of Dis at: <http://www.geocities.com/~tware/index.html>
al_klein
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:14:29 GMT, med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
>
>I prefer the case of homo sapiens, myself. DNA tests have confirmed
>that we are not descended from neanderthals because their dna was
>about "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". That leaves
>nothing resembling a plausible ancestor for homo sapiens on the
>planet. You'd have to have something between the neanderthal and
>us, and that creature along with his works would have been found
>by now if he had existed.
No, you're at the wrong point on the tree. Homo habilis, homo
erectus, the various austalopithicines are all ancestral to h. s. s.
But, if you want an intermediary for each stage, you'd need a fossil
for every 25 years or so - that's probably more human fossils than
there are fossils.
The common ancestor for us and chimps is close to Ramepithecus, give
or take 15 m.y. Maybe we'll find him some day.
>>But there ARE intermediate forms in the fossil record, just not as
>>many as you'd like.
>Face it, Al: there AREN'T any intermediate fossils. Practically
>everybody who works with fossils and isn't brain-dead is on
>record one way or another to that effect. For example:
>"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means
>of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties
>for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence
>of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate
>forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."
There is no "intermediate forms between species". Some "experts" are
more expert than others. An intermediary between canis and felis?
Ludicrous.
>"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil
>gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
And in a lot of unimportant places. IOW, there aren't as many as we'd
like. Real life bites us again. Only theists have all the answers -
scientists don't.
>See what I mean, Al? Why don't you just come clean and admit
>to all the people out there that evolutionists have been deluding
>themselves all along with this thing about fossils? I mean, honesty
>is the best policy...
OK, I'll give you an intermediary, but 1) you won't like it and 2) you
won't live long enough to find out if I'm correct:
Yourself.
Homo sap sap is intermediary between our ancestors and our
descendants. Say, between Homo Habilis and what comes next.
>>>Punc-eek claims to both explain and be validated
>>>by this lack of evidence.
>>P-E doesn't claim to be validated - it attempts to explain the dearth
>>of intermediates.
>It claims that there were intermediates, and then proceeds to explain
>why we can never find any
Appy IS one. And Gould isn't an idiot, he knew that before I did.
--
Al
Real email address:
akl...@villagenet.com
Del
In article <33f6f9c4...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net (Ted
Holden) wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:36:16 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del)
>wrote:
>
>>Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit.
>>Creationist lies pulverized:
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
>>
>>And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of
>>evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an
>>achievement):
>>
>>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
>>
>>Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than
>>Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity.
>
>MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement
>in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e.
>
> For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them
> firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists,
> and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not
> unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference
> between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of
> clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations...
>
>and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying
>in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as
>ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence.
\
Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest
quotes ok?
Compare this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of
life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is
forcing us to revise this conventional view (Stanley, 1981, p 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this
Full quote: The word "evolution" means unfolding, and [f]or more than a
century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual
unfolding of new living things from old, the slow molding of animals and
plants into entirely different forms. It was this persistent style of change
that Darwin described as "The Origin of Species". Today the fossil record -
a rich source of information that was long untapped - is forcing us to
revise this conventional view of evolution. As it turns out, myriads of
species have inhabited the Earth for millions of years without evolving
noticeably. On the other hand, evolutionary transitions have been wrought
during episodes of rapid change, when new species have quickly budded off
from old ones. In short evolution has moved by fits and starts." (Stanley
1981, p. 3-4)
---------
Shear dishonesty. Look at another one:
Theodore:
One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil
record. ... there is no reason to think that all or most of these
gaps will be bridged. (Ruse, 1984, p 101)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual quote:
"But one must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the
fossil record. Moreover, given the high improbability of fossilization,
there is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged.
In short, we will probably reach a limit of fossil evidence for phylogenies,
with many things still unknown. Pertinent information will simply have been
lost, irretrievably. (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
----
Note the missing phrase: "Moreover, given the
high improbability of fossilization" that has been
excised right out of the middle of the quote!
Probably because leaving it in wouldn't give the
desired meaning. And naturally Theodore ignores
any dis-confirming statements like:
"Again, certain specific items of evolution seem now to have been
established, as firmly as any reasonably minded person could demand or wish.
The evolution of birds and mammals springs to mind. The fossil record
showing the transitions is rock solid." (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
"Coming closer to home, the fossil evidence of our own simian ancestry is
overwhelming." (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
>
>The kindest assumption one could make is that this represents some
>sort of an inability to deal with simple logic on MacRae's part. For
>instance, he starts off by noting ReMine's/my use of Gould quotes:
>
> One of my standard posts includes a quote from S.J. Gould wrt (the
>
> lack of) intermediate forms; the standard tribal reaction
> of the t.o. crew is to claim that this quote is badly out of
> context and (what's new) to call me a liar.
>
>And then offering another quote from Gould which supposedly shows
>all nonbelievers who would quote Gould to be liars:
>
> "since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is
> infuriating to be quoted again and again by
> creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -
> as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
>
> species level but are abundant between larger
> groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260).
>
>MacRae does not bother to quote me when it isn't suitable to his
>purposes, and this is obvious here since my reply to this statement
>has been posted many times and he is assuredly familiar with it.
Which is no doubt why he didn't post it and indeed
- one reason why it was unnecessary to do so.
Here, I'll show you why.
>The claim that there are intermediates between "higher taxonomic
>groups" is a cop-out and a sop to evolutionists AFTER Gould had
>succeeded in removing the dead hand of Darwinism from the throat
>of paleontology. The man is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
You see? This is not an argument, Theodore. It is
bald, dishonest assertion. You spout this stuff as
if you thought your opinion carried some weight.
Even if that fairy tale situation were the
reality, it would still be logical fallacy to
treat such statements as anything more than
unsupported bald assertion.
Am I getting through here? I am saying that the
statement you say is omitted and should be
juxtaposed does not, in any way, counter Gould or
address the issues. That is because it isn't an
argument - it is a conclusion. Kapech?
>Seeing intermediates between higher groups amounts to an exercise
>in the use of imagination; it means that, for instance, you can look
>at a microbe, a fish, and a man, and deduce that the fish is
>intermediate between the microbe and the man.
More assertion - this time in the form of a
fatuous straw man. Invoking the straw man is
hardly surprising since theistic anti-
evolutionists cannot muster an argument against
evolution without it. It is mandatory - virtually
100% of the time.
The above is a straw man, of course, because
Theodore cannot offer an example of science making
such an absurd claim.
The chronic use of the straw man fallacy (which
consists of distorting or fabricating a position
for one's opponent and then attacking said
distortion or fabrication as if it were the
opponent's real argument) is quite revealing of
the perpetrator - both of his (dis)honesty and his
inability to deal with the true positions or
arguments on the other side. If one's position is
strong, the last thing you would want to do is
attack an argument your opponent never made - it
is a pure waste of time. The only reason you would
go with the straw man tactic is that you occupy
the weaker position.
The other parts of
>Gould's statements amount to (a) an admission that nowhere on the
>planet is there any real fossil sequence showing one kind of animal
>definitely turning into another and
Another bald assertion that also happens to be a
lie.
(b) an expression of anger that
>people who he doesn't like would quote him.
Extreme magical thinkers like Theodore frequently
exhibit such hubris. The desire for control is so
strong that Theodore would deny Gould his absolute
right to state his own case. Theodore would object
that, he, Theodore knows what Gould's argument
really is, better than Gould does himself.
There is a positive side to your personal
insignificance, Theodore. You will never be
important enough to be chronically misquoted by
bottom feeders such as yourself. You will never
experience what Gould must go through and so you
do not now, nor will you ever, understand it.
>The problem from the point of view of the evolutionists is that there
>now exists a sufficient body of this kind of material in the
>literature that the next judge who has to decide some sort of a major
>case as to whether evolutionism continues its present free ride in our
>education system would almost have to make positive efforts not to
>stumble onto one of the sections of quotes.
Another tactic of the theistic anti-evolutionist,
and a second cousin of the straw man, is
pretending you know, and even speak for, the
"point of view" of the opposing side.
Note also that Theodore has yet to advance an
argument. He merely makes claims.
Furthermore, the last Supreme court decision on
this point post-dated the (mis)quotes Theodore has
offered here - thus disproving his conclusion.
The page I hope he
>stumbles onto would be the section of quote pages at:
>
> http://206.152.255.5/user/sjackson/cosmos.htm
>
>Against this overwhelming array of evidence,
Apparently you forgot to bring this "overwhelming
array of evidence" to the table, Theodore. In fact
you forgot to submit any evidence at all. Don't
tell me: Your baby sister spilled milk on it at
breakfast. Or your dog ate it.
the BandarLog of
>the evolutionist crews of t.o have been reduced to the sort of
>pathetic reaction one observes on MacRae's page and in Del's
>rantings, i.e. claiming that all such quotes are always taken out of
>context and that the full context will always show that evolutionism
>triumphs in the end despite all odds and all evidence.
Theodore's refusal to quote the text of my post
(while whining about other people doing that to
him) regarding my challenge to replace the context
of his many (mis)quotes; Theodore's many examples
of being caught red handed in possession of
quotations that were edited with malice
aforethought and with the intention to deceive;
and his hubris in insisting he knows what others
mean better than they do, all serve as strong
evidence that Theodore's attempt at a straw man
here fails: It is too close to the truth.
> The psychology
>behind this drive to label all nonbelievers as liars is examined at:
There that's better! For a second I thought you
might be slipping. But you have restored my
confidence in your mendacious ability to create
straw men out of hot air.
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/splifaq.htm
>
>Again, one has to take Gould and Eldredge and their statements in
>the context of their assinine [sic] theory.
This is called a question begging epithet. You
know, Theodore, I don't think you have gone more
than a sentence without committing a logical
fallacy of some kind. Are you campaigning for the
presidency of the liars club or something? Hey you
don't have to try so hard - no one denies your
qualifications for the position.
They take pains to destroy
>Darwinism, and then attempt to replace it with something even more
>stupid, if that's possible.
Another lie. Science in general, and Gould and the
others that Theodore (mis)quotes in particular
consider Darwin's achievements quite remarkable.
Modifications to his original theory have been
based on new data unavailable to Darwin in his
day.
Poor Theodore, reduced to pathetically insipid
bullshit like this. What sad way to get attention!
Punc-eek claims to explain the total lack
>of (real/species-level) intermediates in the fossil record and to be
>validated BY that lack
Considering that species level evolution
(speciation) has been witnessed, many times, this
non-argument of yours falls a tad short of
convincing, don't you think?
and, in that sense, punc-eek is a pure
>pseudoscience just like witchcraft since the claim is validation by a
>lack of evidence rather than by evidence.
Another straw man. How boring. Besides distorting
what the theory says Theodore conveniently omits
the positive predictions PE makes. Furthermore, he
ignores the fact that even if every theory of
evolution were scrapped tomorrow it wouldn't
change THE FACT of evolution, any more than
discarding the theory of gravity would cause
Theodore to float away to Venus.
It claims that inbreeding
>is the most major cause of genetic success and advancement, which
>is patently idiotic.
Ho hum. Another lie/straw man.
It requires an eternal victory of miniscule [sic]
>groups of animals over vastly larger herds, which is like requiring
>Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for millions of years,
Another straw man with a false analogy thrown in
for good measure.
and
>it requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to
>localized conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which
>never happens in real life either.
Same-o. It always cracks me up when someone who
knows better what PE says than Theodore does (in
other words almost anyone over the age of 8)
corrects him, he will tell them they are wrong.
His mindless hubris would cause him to tell Gould
- the co-author of the theory himself - that he
was wrong about what PE actually says. That's
just how out of touch and frightened the
Theodore's of the world are of science.
>Within that larger context, one observes how truly pathetic MacRae's
>attempted use of Gould's little "I hate it when creationists quote me"
>quote really is.
Of course that isn't even close to what Gould
actually said. But Theodore is so conditioned to
lying about what hated scientists say,
misquotation is just a reflex to him.
Like a kneejerk.
Riley M. Sinder
--------------------
>> > Atheism is a Religion.
-----
>> At what point does atheism become a religion?
>> When it argues against the other religions?
>> When it provides a secular explanation of the universe?
"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> writes:
>Religion = secular?
=================================
Exactly.
Can you point to any NON-secular element in any religion?
Riley M. Sinder
-------------------------
Jill and Carl <pum...@erols.com> writes:
>why waste time on any science education, end all public support for any
>education!!
You may not believe it. But there is a good reason
to teach empirical science to students.
For those students well-versed in empirical science can
get better jobs to comptete in the international market.
However, evolutionism is not an empirical science. For example,
there is no engineering process that produces mice from
finches or finches from mice.
Hence, in regard to evolutionism, the only valid question
is whether you want to teach religion in your science
classes?
>why waste taxpayers-money on non-scientific/reading/writing/math
>education, end all non 3-r's and non-science education funding.
In any SECULAR area, how much of non-scientific reading and
writing you want to include in your science class is entirely
up to the taxpayers that pay for your schools.
However, in regard to RELIGION, the Supreme Court dictates
which religion shall be taught--if any--in your public
schools.
As a result, you cannot keep the religion of evolutionism
out of your schools. Moreover, you cannot balance the religious teaching
of evolutionism with any competing religion.
Riley M. Sinder
-----------------------
>>And the evolutionists have no reasonable basis for banning
>>the teaching of creationism or any other crackpot theory of origins
gsc...@aol.com (GSCOTT2) writes:
>Evolutionists never banned the teaching of creationism,
Sure they did. Look at the empirical data.
Were you under the impression that the CREATIONISTS
banned the teaching of creationism?
Any neutral observer can see that the creationists
attempt to ban the teaching of evolution. And the evolutionists
attempt to ban the teaching of creation.
>you can still take
>a Theology course or such. But all we've said is that a scientific theory
>shall be taught as a theory in science class.
That is fine.
And WHO determines what is a "scientific theory"? Those of
the evolutionist faith--or those of the creationist faith?
In any NON-religious setting, the taxpayers of the community
get to decide what is the "scientific theory" that is to
be taught in their schools.
But at present in the matter of RELIGION, the evolutionists have a
legal monopoly on teaching religion in public science classes.
John Wilkins
Followups to talk.origins
In article <jfacts-1708...@1cust64.max2.santa-clara.ca.ms.uu.net>,
jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) wrote:
| Here are the cures for Theodore's brand of bullshit.
| Creationist lies pulverized:
|
| http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
|
| And this archive of past Holden lies on the subject of
| evolution that still embarrass even him (quite an
| achievment):
|
| http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
|
| Don't miss 'em. They are 20 times more entertaining than
| Theodore's pathetic, warmed-over stupidity.
|
|
| In article <33f602a0...@news.digex.net>, med...@access.digex.net
| (Ted Holden) wrote:
|
| >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:36:33 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
| >
| >>>The "rock record" indicates a total lack of the intermediate forms
| >>>which any version of evolution via random genetic drift and
| >>>selection require.
| >
| >>If you mean a half-dog, half-cat . . . no, no one could be that dense.
| >
| >Setting up straw men is a last resort for angry people who don't have
| >a case based on evidence.
|
| Ironic, then, that Theodore proceeds to post a whole string of
| straw men, isn't it? What a loser. Sheesh.
|
<...>
| [...]
| >
| >See what I mean, Al?
|
| We sure do! You are a dishonest douche bag. Every
| single quote by a true scientist you offered here -
| every single one - was taken out of context. And
| let there be no mistake as to what I mean by "taken
| out of context." I mean you purposely edited the
| quotes in order to change the authors actual and
| intended meaning. Why don't you prove me wrong
| by supplying the context you left out
| Theodore? I predict that there is not THE
| SLIGHTEST chance that you will have the balls to
| fill in the context of your quotes. This will be the
| smoking gun of your dishonesty.
|
| If you even have the balls to respond to this, which
| is doubtful, I predict you will try to shift your burden
| of proof to me - you make the claims and it is always
| someone elses job to prove your wrong, isn't it Theodore?
|
| You're not fooling anyone Theodore. You're not even
| entertaining anyone.
It is also unsurprising that Ted no longer posts this egregious tripe (I
always wanted to use that phrase) in the talk.origins newsgroup, where it
belongs, since this sort of spamming was moderated to four groups. It's
certainly brought the signal:noise ratio up in t.o but obviously too much
for Ted. It's a pity. Ted is warmly regarded in t.o, like an idiot cousin
would be in a generous family...
--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote
Ted Holden
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:41:32 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del)
wrote:
>
>>MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement
>>in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e.
>>
>> For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them
>> firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists,
>> and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not
>> unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference
>> between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of
>> clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations...
>>
>>and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying
>>in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as
>>ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence.
>\
>
>Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest
>quotes ok?
No, it's not "OK", Al, and in fact I stopped reading at this point.
The point to hand is simple enough to comprehend; if you can't deal
with it, then you'd better hope you never have to figure out anything
complicated. The "full quote" i.e. the rest of the page will, in most
cases, as Remine notes up front, indicate that the particular author
claims to have reason to believe in evolution(ism) despite the
statements which are being quoted. The <point>, which you and MacRae
are obviously blind to, is that all of these quotations add up to an
indictment of evolutionism DESPITE the rest of the page.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was
happening on the front and were to debrief a number of luitenants and
sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of
casualties this morning and really got our asses kicked, but overall
things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." The general
would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a problem
on his hands.
THAT is the point which ReMine is making.
wol...@econo.net
On 16 Aug 1997 14:52:22 -0400, Publius <pub...@seminole.gate.net>
wrote:
>In alt.fan.publius no...@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
>: Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>: >
>: > The two religions competing would be satisfied
>: > if they could ban the other from the science class.
>
>: Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
>: *religion* out of *science* class.
>
> Since Atheism is a Religion, (It has yet to "prove"
> its dogmatic position that Life originated as the
> result of some primordial chemical accident),
> I don't object to its being discussed in our schools,
> so long as it is discussed along with counter
> concepts. The attitude of Atheists - if they had
> the absolute power, as they did for a while in
> Russia, would be the same as the Inquisitioners.
> PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
I disagree, one atheism is not a religion, it's just non-belief in
something that can't be proven.
So they have more belief in science and not following blindly, like
faith demands
The Inquisitioners were religious, Russia on the other hand did not
want anything to undetermined them, they weren't atheists.
A true Atheists, who respects the right of humans, will defend the
right of people to believe in what they want.
Wolf
===================================================
Mankind believes in something he cannot comprehend
and comprehends something he cannot believe
-----------------------------------------------
Dem truth is one Dem agreeing with another Dem.
-----------------------------------------------
The worst inequality, is trying to make something not
equal, equal
Del
In article <33f91d47...@news.digex.net>,
med...@access.digex.net (Ted
Holden) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:41:32 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>MacRae even goes so far as to quote the main operative statement
>>>in Remine's little page of quotes, i.e.
>>>
>>> For documentation, I quote only evolutionists. Each of them
>>> firmly believes that large-scale phylogeny exists,
>>> and their statements to that effect are ubiquitous, if not
>>> unavoidable. Yet there can be (and is) a difference
>>> between what they believe and what they observe. For the sake of
>>> clarity, I try to separate the two and cite the observations...
>>>
>>>and then proceeds to attempt to show that ReMine is somehow lying
>>>in quoting the various authors out of context since they all do, as
>>>ReMine notes, believe in evolution despite the evidence.
>>\
>>
>>Let's just give a few examples of your dishonest
>>quotes ok?
>
>No, it's not "OK", Al, and in fact I stopped reading at this point.
Hey don't sweat it, Theodore. I can understand why you
would not wish to face the same embarrassment for your
misquotations all over again. It is enough for me that
others are apprised of your past behavior and ethical
standards. Therefore I am happy accept your nolo plea.
>The point to hand is simple enough to comprehend;
And simpler yet to shoot down - which I did.
if you can't deal
>with it, then you'd better hope you never have to figure out anything
>complicated.
I dealt with it so effectively you were too shook up to
even read it. The evidence is so damning that you would
surely refute it if you were able to.
People are smart enough to understand your tacit
admission: that you are unable refute (or in this case,
even face) the smoking gun evidence I provided.
The "full quote" i.e. the rest of the page will, in most
>cases, as Remine notes up front, indicate that the particular author
>claims to have reason to believe in evolution(ism)
In "most cases." How nice! So maybe we should just take
your word for it instead of actually looking at the
passages and deciding for ourselves?
Yeah, right, dream on! Even a cursory comparison of the
quotes in question demonstrates your claim is bullshit.
The fact that you didn't even try to prove what you say
here is just more evidence that your claim is BS - as
if any more evidence were needed.
However I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you
want another chance at refuting the smoking gun
evidence.
despite the
>statements which are being quoted. The <point>, which you and MacRae
>are obviously blind to, is that all of these quotations add up to an
>indictment of evolutionism DESPITE the rest of the page.
Horse crap. Expressing your wishful thinking as though
it were established fact might be comforting to your
damaged ego, but it is hardly convincing to anyone
else.
>It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was
>happening on the front and were to debrief a number of luitenants [sic] and
>sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of
>casualties this morning and really got our asses kicked, but overall
>things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." The general
>would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a problem
>on his hands.
LOL! Look at this! Why on earth would you use analogy
when a direct examination of the issue is not only
possible but indicated?? The answer is obvious: you
refuse to address the evidence, and invent this phony
analogy instead, because you know you can't refute the
evidence. You just aren't man enough to admit it.
You're blowing smoke and you know it. So does everyone
else.
Rule 1 of Modem Creationism: Claim evidence...then quietly disappear
Gi...@thelooney.bin
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:17:42 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>In article <33f4e6be...@news.wco.com>, Here wrote:
>
>
>> May I join the fray.
>
>"Join in" yeah right. You're a hit and run fundy. I can
>smell it. I'm betting you don't have the courage of
>your convictions, pal.
My Apologies for a not so timely answer, but my job has been moving me
around on different shifts and it's hard to get a proper nights sleep or to
reply to your post.
First explain what a hit and run "Fundy" is. Secondly, You have no idea
who or what I am; to be making a blind statement that I don't have the
" courage of my convictions." You sound like typical Liberal to me, Make blind
statements and expect the rest of us to swallow what you say as, ( if you'll
pardon the expression ) The Gospel Truth. NOT.
>> Concerning Evolution, I'm no rocket scientist, but.... Where may I ask
>>is "any" proof what so ever, that anyone or anything has ever "Evolved" In the
>>animal kingdom or mans world?
>
>Science doesn't deal in "proof." Never has. However the
>amount of evidence for evolution is enormous, just mind
>boggling. To answer your question - yes. Speciation -
>the evolution of new species - has been witnessed many
>times. Sorry to bitterly disappoint you.
You couldn't be more wrong with this statement, Science works on the
principle of a hypotheses first, than moves to prove by recreations of an
instance. Evolution has not done this, ever.
Speciation? I feel I have a decent vocabulary, but this one's new on me.
Now if your referring to " Adaptation of a species to it's environment"
I'll concur 100% to that fact. But that is a far reach to say that it is
evolution.
>Is there one shred of proof; any bones? Anything
>>that can be pointed out to be in the process of evolution?
>
>How could bones be in the process of evolution? Otherwise
>your question is a straw man.
Not the process, but proof / evidence that such a thing has happened in
the past, or are you telling me that no intermediates never died as they
evolved? You know, like the "Fact" that we know Dinosaurs actually roamed the
earth because we have "BONES" to prove that; Go into any Museum and you will
"SEE" them with your own eye's, as far as evolution is concerned all I've see is
an artist rendition of "HIS" ( and your's, apparently) "hypotheses" of how man
"evolved". An never has been recreated by science or nature for that fact, which
makes it a bold faced "LIE" in my book.
>What, no intermediate
>>transitions to be found. Nope.
>
>Who told you that lie? Do you want the (partial) list
>of transitional forms? The first half is about 30 pages
>long. I think I'll just go ahead and send it to you
>anyway.
No, 1 will do, this I have to see to believe, Please point me to the
light of truth. You can't there is none. Name one species that has evolved, not
adapted to it's evolvement, "EVOLVE" That is a unknown never seen creature that
is wholly new to this earth, because that is what evolution would be a creation
of a whole new life form created form an existing life form. Zebras and the like
don't count their hybrid.
>Why? Because evolution is a hypothesist [sic] clothed
>>in sheeps' clothing as the truth. Hypothesis is not fact or truth, but a
>tool to
>>"Think" what might be the answer without empirical facts, an assumption.
>
>You don't know what you are talking about. Evolution is
>both a fact and a theory - a theory every bit as
>scientifically solid as the theory of gravity. Do you
>want me to prove that you are uninformed on the
>subject? Here you go: tell us the simple, one sentence
>definition of evolution - the one used in biology. I
>would be pleased if you proved me wrong by knowing the
>answer but I am sure you don't. If I am right then you
>don't even know what you are attacking - demonstrating
>my point that you don't know what you are talking
>about.
Now your stating that a "theory" is fact. Ya right , what a laugh.
Hahahahaha. Thanks I needed that.: ) As for your challenge, I was told this
tripe in grade school, I believe 3rd grade that was a long time ago for me and I
threw that idea out as it came in, why would I want to memorize or study such
hypothetical trash.
>> Here is some empirical scientific facts that point more to the existence
>>of a Creator then to hap hazard circumstances, or evolution.
>
>You'll have to show why anyone should accept your
>assertion that your conclusion is true. Just saying
>"this proves it" doesn't prove it.
Nor does your assertion. I take mine on as much "Faith" as you have to
of your beliefs.
>[ phony "proof" omitted ]
I see you throw the actual science out in favor of your hypotheses.
>There is more than meets the eye to
>>the existence of man on this little ball of mud. It "was" designed to support
>>Human life and no other reason.
>
>Really! Is that why there are so many different species
>of cockroaches?
And this proves????????
> That is unless you hold to the latest ,Uhm,
>>hypothesis from the evolutionist;
>
>Again you don't have a clue as to what you are talking
>about.
>
>> Secondly, There "Is" plenty of proof of the existence of Christ and his
>>life,
>
>Baloney. Do you have any kind of evidence at all for
>the things you say?
Gees, I don't know why don't you go check some books out in the library
for that time period maybe from the Roman era, and Hebrew, and don't forget the
Muslims they never have questioned the fact of Jesus' actual existence. But
figure he was just a wise man on the level of Mohammed, possibly a brother or
something like that. I'm not that well read in Muslims.
>
>> not just from the religious side, the Bible, but from many other cultures
>>that have nothing but contempt for Christianity or Judaism.
>
>We await your evidence for this with bated breath.
I'm not your teacher, if you really seek to truth you will go research
yourself. I have a living to make, to pay for all the lames who can't get off
their tail to get a job and support their own selves and families.
> The Bible on the
>>other hand "has" been proven factually and historically correct by many set out
>>to disprove it on many points.
>
>In that case you must also believe in the ascension of
>Augustus Caesar into heaven since at least one
>historically accurate tome of the day said the entire
>Roman Senate witnessed and testified to this
>occurrence. (Oh, oh! Watch as the Christian double
>standards kick in!)
Because, the Roman Senate more than likely would have been put to death
for heresy if they had not said so, and of course to keep the political power of
the Caesar alive and thought of as a god. Duh, this was easy. You make a lot of
assumptions without knowing me. A true sign of a liberal, making assumptions for
others.
>> So if your going to say that something taught in a classroom should be
>>based on facts proven to be true and not supposition or hypothesis, you will
>>have to agree that the Bible is the one of the two to be taught.
>
>("one of the two" what?) Actually you would first have
>to make a viable argument to that effect (sorry. I know
>you expect special treatment). It might also help if
>you learned a bit about science - especially the
>definitions of words like theory, fact, hypothesis, and
>evolution. I predict you won't, however. You are afraid
>to - especially WRT the def of evolution. Your failure
>to learn it will prove my point.
Please O' wise master, please set me on the road of light and truth.
Hahahahaha. Not likely.
Gizmo
Death to the United Nations and all who Worship the "Beast"
(alt.politics.usa.republican)
James Madison Jan.19,1788 The Federalist Papers No.41
This picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly
colored, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace,
every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty,
ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in
his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able
to set a due value on the means of preserving it.
Riley M. Sinder
----------------------------------
>>Evolution requires intermediate
>>forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."
Al Klein writes:
>There is no "intermediate forms between species". Some "experts" are
>more expert than others. An intermediary between canis and felis?
>Ludicrous.
=============================
Even if there IS NO intermediate form between H. sapiens
and the distant bacterial ancestors, the dogma of common descent
surely teaches that there are many.
Perhaps you were thinking of the lack of anything other than
finches from any closely observed family of finches.
Or do you deny that the ancient ancestral anaerobic bacteria were
a "species"! That's not a very nice thing to say about Mom.
Dale C. Eddy
Ted Holden wrote:
>
> Why outlaw teaching evolution? Because it's beastly stupid
> (see http://access.digex.com/~medved/idolatry.html for
> details), and having even one enormously stupid doctrine
> taught in our schools, supposedly as a "fact", is basically
> a bad idea. It makes it that much easier for the second beastly
> stupid idea to be adopted by our schools. To paraphrase
> Everett Dirkson, one beastly stupid idea here, another
> beastly stupid idea there, and pretty soon you've got a lot
> of really stupid shit being drummed into the heads of our
> schoolkids.
>
> Ted Holden
I believe it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', not the 'Fact of
Evolution'. If you really want to get the drivel out of our schools,
forget Evolution vs. Creationism. Worry more about 'Why can't Johnny
Read/Write/do Arithmetic?' We've been saddled with a piss poor system of
teaching children to read that doesn't work. Phonics is dismissed as an
old fashioned way....even though it works! Start there and THEN worry
about Evolution/Creationism, otherwise it means nothing if the child is
illiterate and incapable of doing something as simple as filling out a
job application or college scholarship forms.
-DCE
Jim Sarbeck
In article <5t4st6$1j...@seminole.gate.net>, Publius
<pub...@seminole.gate.net> wrote:
: In alt.fan.publius no...@nowhere.NOSPAM wrote:
: : Riley M. Sinder wrote:
: : >
: : > The two religions competing would be satisfied
: : > if they could ban the other from the science class.
:
: : Intelligent obsevers would be happy if they kept
: : *religion* out of *science* class.
:
: Since Atheism is a Religion, (It has yet to "prove"
: its dogmatic position that Life originated as the
: result of some primordial chemical accident),
Atheism is silent on this subject. A particular atheist might not be. But
then again, a bowling enthusiast might not be. It is a coincidence.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Riley M. Sinder
--------------------------------------
>> One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil
>> record. ... there is no reason to think that all or most of these
>> gaps will be bridged. (Ruse, 1984, p 101)
jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del) writes:
>Sheer dishonesty. The actual quote is as follows.
>"But one must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the
>fossil record. Moreover, given the high improbability of fossilization,
>there is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged.
>In short, we will probably reach a limit of fossil evidence for phylogenies,
>with many things still unknown. Pertinent information will simply have been
>lost, irretrievably. (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
==========================================
To any neutral observer, Ruse (1984) has stated the impossibility
of finding the footprints of the god to whom the evolutionists desperately
wish the public to bow.
If it is highly improbable that the footprints of the god will
fossilize, then how do you expect to demonstrate the
intermediate steps of the god from Anaerobe, AL
to Canis, CA and Felis, MO?
In short, the evolutionists will probably reach a limit of
what empirical evidence can show. And therefore the
evolutionists must launch themselves into the Grand
Canyon on faith.
Stix
Andrew Hall posted the following to alt.atheism:
>While Mr. Stix's style leaves much to be desired,
Ooh! Now I'm hurt. I kinda thought I'd been soft on him. :)
>it is nevertheless a fact that Mr. Del clearly
>proved your dishonesty.
Yep. If you're not familiar with Ted, I can understand your feelings as to
my (angelic and gentle?) chastisement of him - but if you were familiar
with him and the dishonest crap he spews, you'd understand the venom.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Stix
Ted Holden posted the following to alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:09:29 GMT, stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix)
>wrote:
>>No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your stupid, lying
>>ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how dishonest you are!!
>>
>>* D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful moron...
>
>[further ranting deleted...]
>
>I rest my case. That's what these Bandarlog reps are about in calling
>the unconvinced "liars".
That's it Teddles, keep wriggling like a maggot on a hotplate, there's a
good little moron.....
Oh well, at least your lack of adequate rebuttal equates a concession of
the statements I made. Could it be that Ted recognizes his demise?
Yeah, well who wouldn't see something so obvious?
Oh hang on, Ted's a Velikovskian lickspittle; not much chance of coherent
thought there.......so nah, he probably still thinks he's got something
worth saying....how sad.
Narhi
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Narhi <nar...@diebold.com> writes:
>
> >Note, to attack evolution DOES NOT support
> >creationism. Creationism must stand on the pillars of its own evidence.
>
> =============================
>
> Of course, you are right. To attack the Eastern
> religion does NOT support the Western religion.
>
> Evolutionism should stand on the pillars of its
> own evidence. But evolutionism's evidence
> is so weak that the evolutionists have been forced
> to suppress the teaching of the opposing religions
> in order to survive.
>
> To the neutral observers, it is just one religion against
> the other.
>
> It WOULD be preferable if the playing field of
> evolutionism and creationism were level.
>
> But level playing fields are not in the nature of the
> evolutionary and creationary religions.
>
> Hence, if you cannot muster a pillar of evidence, then call down
> the pillars of the law to silence the teaching of
> the apostate creationism.
Please provide your evidence FOR creationism. You seem to claim that
they are on equal footing. Here is a brief synopsis of evidence for
evolution:
1. Geological columns supporting simple to complex life forms.
2. micro-evolution in labs
3. radiometric dating showing earth is VERY OLD.
4. fossil records
5. fossil records showing progression which include transitional
species.
6. presence of Lucy skeleton
This is just to name a few. Now your turn - remember they must be
verifiable facts upon which your theory of Creation was based. I keep
asking and all I ever get in response is preaching or numbing silence.
Thank you,
W. Narhi
B. Allen
<I believe it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', not the 'Fact of
Evolution'. If you really want to get the drivel out of our schools,
forget Evolution vs. Creationism. Worry more about 'Why can't Johnny
Read/Write/do Arithmetic?' We've been saddled with a piss poor system of
teaching children to read that doesn't work. Phonics is dismissed as an
old fashioned way....even though it works! Start there and THEN worry
about Evolution/Creationism, otherwise it means nothing if the child is
illiterate and incapable of doing something as simple as filling out a
job application or college scholarship forms.
-DCE>
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't cut it. If our kids simply know how to read and write and add, that doesn't
prepare them for the world today. I'm certain that you can find examples of high school graduates who cannot
read their own diploma, but I assure you most students have the three R's down.
Our kids need to learn about science and the issues of where we came from are pretty basic to that discussion.
I want my children to learn about evolution in science class and learn about Adam and Eve in Sunday School
class. Adam and Eve are an important allegory that has numerous lessons of value today. But it is not a
history of our creation. At least that's my opinion. But I'm open-minded. Find a talking snake and then get
back to me.
Stix
Ted Holden posted the following to alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:26:37 -0700, jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Del)
>wrote:
>
>[...admits he still doesn't understand it...]
ROTFLMFAO!!
No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your stupid, lying
ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how dishonest you are!!
* D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful moron,
demonstrated. He provided the dishonest misquotes that you spew in your
pathetic attempt to discredit evolution, AND provided the full contexual
quotes of what was *actually* said. Just who the fuck do you think you're
fooling you lying, Velikovskian DICKHEAD???
>That really sad.
Hah! What's really sad - albeit extremely amusing - is the pitiful way you
try to cling to the non-existent shreds of integrity you only wish you had.
You've been publicly exposed as a dishonest liar, Teddles, and your pitiful
attempts to ignore the scathing desecration your dishonesty just suffered
only serve to further demonstrate what a dishonest, biased, self-serving,
piece-of-shit-with-an-anti-evolution-agenda you truly are.
Crawl away and hide, you worthless abomination. All you can possibly do to
save what's left of your face is disappear into silence.
>Splifford the bat says:
Talking bats? I guess creationist idiots believe in talking snakes so
nothing's really unusual there.....
>A mind is a terrible thing to waste;
Oh the irony! The bitter-sweet tang of irony! This from a Velikovskian??
It is to laugh......
> especially on an evolutionist.
That's it, if you can't defeat it with evidence, attempt to reduce its
veracity by falsely claiming it's merely a doctrine of belief rather than
an observed phenomenon. You really are pathetic.
>Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
>doctrines.
*Especially* Velikovskian insanity......
Go away Ted, your squirming is embarrassing to watch.
Ted Holden
>No you dribbling fool!! He just absolutely shitcanned your stupid, lying
>ass and *demonstrated* to a heap of newsgroups how dishonest you are!!
>
>* D * E * M * O * N * S * T * R * A * T * E * D * you pitiful moron...
[further ranting deleted...]
I rest my case. That's what these Bandarlog reps are about in calling
the unconvinced "liars".
Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
no...@nowhere.nospam
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
> -------------------------------
>
> >> If you will examine your geological column closely,
> >> you will see as much evidence of God's handiwork as you
> >> will see of your divine Evolution.
>
> >> Namely, when you look at the geological column, you will
> >> see proof for what your heartfelt faith tells you is true.
>
> Narhi <nar...@diebold.com> writes:
>
> >I humbly request you provide the proof of what convinced you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Empirical evidence only indicates but does not prove.
>
> If you examine the empirical evidence--even the sampling
> of posts in this newsgroup--you can see that creationists
> and evolutionists look at the same geological column
> and see proof for what their heartfelt faith tells
> them is true.
Rewritten in plain english: I can offer no evidence
for creationism except that creationists must have
looked at the geological column and come to a different
conclution. Sorry creationists looked at the bible
and concluded "god did it" long before anyone looked
at geological column.
> Here is the fundamental empirical datum.
>
> Write down what is your heartfelt belief about the origins
> of the species.
>
> Then on a separate sheet of paper, write down what you
> see in your favorite geological column.
>
> If you are a normal participant in this newsgroup, your
> statement of what you believe about the the origins
> of the species is nondistinguishable from what you
> see in the geological column.
Science doens't go by "heartfelt belief" it is driven
by evidence. Your just pissed because creationism doesn't
have any evidence. If it did you would have answered the
question instead you simply attacked evolution.
Ford
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 23:08:48 -0700, "B. Allen" <dig...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Whatever you think of evolution, most in the scientific community
would agree that it is fact, not theory, and should be taught in any
lower level science classes as to expose every individual to a field
scientific study that some may want to pursue as a career as well as
giving all students the basic knowledge we have uncovered in the field
of anthropology, just as we would with other branches of science such
as biology and astronomy.
F. Prefect
When your pet bird sees you reading the newspaper, does he wonder why
you're just sitting there, staring at carpeting?
al_klein
>I believe it's called the 'Theory of Evolution', not the 'Fact of
>Evolution'.
Just in case no one else corrects you:
There is:
1) Evolution - which has been observed.
2) Theorie*S* of evolution. Explanations of the how and why of
evolution.
> If you really want to get the drivel out of our schools,
>forget Evolution vs. Creationism. Worry more about 'Why can't Johnny
>Read/Write/do Arithmetic?' We've been saddled with a piss poor system of
>teaching children to read that doesn't work. Phonics is dismissed as an
>old fashioned way....even though it works!
Well, reading *is* kind of old fashioned, isn't it? And the brain is
also. We learned to read 100 years ago, we learned to read 50 years
ago and we learned to read 30 years ago. Somewhere around 25 years
ago, everything started falling apart.
What to do about it? I haven't a clue.
Stephen W. Anderson
Ford wrote:
> Whatever you think of evolution, most in the scientific community
> would agree that it is fact, not theory, and should be taught in any
> lower level science classes as to expose every individual to a field
> scientific study that some may want to pursue as a career as well as
> giving all students the basic knowledge we have uncovered in the field
> of anthropology, just as we would with other branches of science such
> as biology and astronomy.
Not many thinking people will deny that evolution exists. In that sense
it is fact, and of course it should be taught in science classes. It
consists of genetic mutation, transmission of genetic code from older to
younger generations, and natural selection. All three of those things
indisputably exist, and thus so does evolution.
Though for some reason many people seem not to want to see it this way
(maybe like a lot of netters they enjoy misplaced disputes in which
everyone pompously shouts over disconnected perceptions) the question is
not one of the existence of evolution but whether or not it is solely
responsible for the existence of mankind. A more basic question is
whether or not human beings have souls. Science cannot presently answer
those; probably it never will. It is not epistemologically suited for
them and they are inappropriate for science classes. Their place is in
philosophy and religion courses, which also should be required in well
rounded high school and collegiate curricula.
BTW, if it isn't too personal why did you choose F.P. as a nom de net?
--
Stephen Worley Anderson in Rocky Mount, North Carolina
(To e-mail, alter the header address by deleting "erasethis.")
Not a Republican
Stephen W. Anderson wrote in article
<33FCDA...@erasethis.interpath.com>...
>Not many thinking people will deny that evolution exists. In that sense
>it is fact, and of course it should be taught in science classes. It
>consists of genetic mutation, transmission of genetic code from older to
>younger generations, and natural selection. All three of those things
>indisputably exist, and thus so does evolution.
>
If you wish to so define evolution, I could almost live with such a less
ambitious definition. Still, many define evolution in very terms of the
bigger questions you posit, that evolution must needs be the process to
which most, if not all, living things owe their origins and existence.
That some type of natural selection occurs is more or less beyond dispute.
That genetic code is transmitted from older to younger generations is also
evident. That some type of genetic mutation occurs is also an observable
fact. That such mutation fulfills most evolutionists' claims of being
responsible for a development of species is far from evident.
I think most evolutionists would reject it without attributing to it the
matter of origins of species, including our own.
Riley M. Sinder
-------------------------------------
>> Evolutionism should stand on the pillars of its
>> own evidence. But evolutionism's evidence
>> is so weak that the evolutionists have been forced
>> to suppress the teaching of the opposing religions
>> in order to survive.
no...@nowhere.NOSPAM writes:
>Nice try, but the separation of church and state
>is what keeping creationism out of public schools.
===========================
The separation of church and state has only a religious
basis.
There is no secular justification for separating church
and state.
Any educated European can see that church and state are both
politics.
Riley M. Sinder
-------------------------------
>> If you examine the empirical evidence--even the sampling
>> of posts in this newsgroup--you can see that creationists
>> and evolutionists look at the same geological column
>> and see proof for what their heartfelt faith tells
>> them is true.
no...@nowhere.NOSPAM writes:
>Sorry. Creationists looked at the bible
>and concluded "god did it" long before anyone looked
>at geological column.
======================================
The anomaly is that the evolutionists blindly look at the Bible
to tell whether or not creationism is a "religion" to be banned.
Without the Bible as proof, the evolutionists have no
evidence for what religion is.
Gi...@thelooney.bin
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:49:40 GMT, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>--------------------------------
>
>>>Speciation -
>>>the evolution of new species - has been witnessed many
>>>times. Sorry to bitterly disappoint you.
>
>
>Gi...@TheLooney.Bin (Gi...@TheLooney.Bin) writes:
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong with this statement, Science works on the
>>principle of a hypotheses first, than moves to prove by recreations of an
>>instance. Evolution has not done this, ever.
>
>=======================================
>
>The evolutionists' difficulty is a bottom-line difficulty.
>
>The evolutionists just cannot deliver on the bottom line.
>
>For example, the speciation that the evolutionists try to
>sell is merely finches breeding finches and mice breeding
>mice--which is no advance over what every farmer has done
>since the Copper Age.
>
>Nobody buys what the evolutionists try to sell--except the
>true believers in evolutionism. And they buy for
>mere ceremonial purposes--with no regard for the bottom line.
True how true. Plus the fact that Darwin and all his followers are
sexists and racists of the worse kind. They must be, to accept the whole premise
of what Darwin believed, if not then Darwin was wrong in his racist beliefs, If
the evolutionists feel this part of his teachings are wrong than they will have
to consider that the rest may be wrong also and that Darwin was a Bigoted,
sexist, racist and a complete idiot.
'Nough said about that moron...Darwin.
Cemtech
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.970822085836.846A-
100...@bluejay.creighton.edu>, jer...@creighton.edu says...
>
> The current evolutionism vs creationism debate does not accurately reflect
> all the possibilities of the creation of life.
Evolution is not involved with creation of life via any means.
> Just because human beings
> have failed to establish evolutionism as a fact now does not mean that
> creationism is a probability of even a possibility.
That evolution does take place, is fact. Otherwise all generations would
be exactly the same.
> Many scientific facts
> anihilate traditional Christian creationism.
Certainly.
> These facts do not totally
> support the theory of evolution.
Of course not. They do not support evolution at all.
This illogic (false dichotomy) is mainly used by creationists.
> Some tinkering needs to be done.
Infinitely.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com OR cem...@pacbell.net (phase out end September)
cem...@sprintmail.com (phase in now)
David Veal
In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>,
Riley M. Sinder <red...@netcom.com> wrote:
>The anomaly is that the evolutionists blindly look at the Bible
>to tell whether or not creationism is a "religion" to be banned.
It is sufficient to look at creationism, which explicitly relies
on the Bible.
>Without the Bible as proof, the evolutionists have no
>evidence for what religion is.
It may come as a shock to you, but the Bible is not the only
component of either religions in general, or the Christian religion in
particular.
For many Christians, it isn't even the highest authority.
--
David Veal ve...@utkux.utk.edu http://www.ce.utk.edu/veal
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Captain
Riley M. Sinder wrote:
>
Why outlaw not in jail?
Ed Redondo
In article <rednbluE...@netcom.com>, red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>And the evolutionists have no reasonable basis for banning
>the teaching of creationism or any other crackpot theory of origins
>--unless the evolutionists can demonstrate breeding something other
>than finches from finches and something other than mice
>from mice.
>
>
This has been shown to be true. Your problem is that you don't believe the
evidence. Also, your problem is that you do believe that evolution
contradicts the Bible. It could also be that you don't fully understand
how evolution works and you are just taking what someone else told you
about it as gospel (pun intended).
IMHO the difference between the Bible and evolution is like someone saying,
"A car is made of metal and I put gas in it to make it run," and the full
detailed technical explanation on just how a car is built. The problem
with creationism is the belief in taking the Bible literally. God did a
magic trick; abra kadrabra, poof, and Adam was there. Evolution is nothing
more than the detailed technical explanation on how God performed His
wondrous feat.
===== Ed Redondo =====
It is by Rush alone that I set my mind in motion.
It is by the words of Rush that the lip begins to droop,
the lip acquires drool, the drool becomes a warning.
It is by Rush alone that I set my mind in motion.
David Schuttler
What's wrong with a ceremony based on the God in "in God we trust" on
money,and the God in "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Same God is it not? Not budda or some other crazy group.Just the God that
was with the forefather's that built this Country.
bam...@ionet.net
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1037/
Steve Shriver
David Schuttler wrote:
>
> What's wrong with a ceremony based on the God in "in God we trust" on
> money,and the God in "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
> Same God is it not? Not budda or some other crazy group.Just the God that
> was with the forefather's that built this Country.
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the
christian religion." George Washington.
So which god are you talking about now?
> bam...@ionet.net
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1037/
--
steve shriver # 553
"It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first,
man would have been a plagiarism." Mark Twain
Bud
Contrary to popular belief, many of the founding fathers were not Christian
but Deists. Does this mean that you are willing to accept "Deism" as the
official religion of the land?
BJ
David Schuttler <bam...@ionet.net> wrote in article
<5u018n$n6c$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
> What's wrong with a ceremony based on the God in "in God we trust" on
> money,and the God in "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of
Allegiance.
> Same God is it not? Not budda or some other crazy group.Just the God
that
> was with the forefather's that built this Country.
> bam...@ionet.net
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1037/
>
>
>
Mark
Chumly3
>Contrary to popular belief, many of the founding fathers were not Christian
>but Deists. Does this mean that you are willing to accept "Deism" as the
>official religion of the land?
Stupid question...
What is "deism"?
chumly3
Chumly3
>Dan - fact is fact, and theory is imagination but not necessarily proof.
>You believe to be true what is one man's idea. I believe to be true what
>is God's idea - an idea that was spread through many men. Darwin was
>foolish to create such an absurb theory of "survival of fittest" - in the
>real world the opposite is just as likely to take place.
>
>Your religious belief in evolution is absurd.
>
>--
>Nathan
>
>
First off, how can you say 'survival of the fittest' doesn't exist. I
personally think we see it everyday. Look at our society. For example;
bums, lower class, middle class, upper class. I look at 'survival of the
fittest' along those lines and also in animal life. Hyenas in the African
plains always at the sicker animals FIRST.
I personally think that religion started by some crazed lunatic who 'sold'
everybody into the idea. He/she then decided to write a book about which
other people shared their ideas in. Now, whatever you choose to believe in
is your way and thats fine I just tend to think about some things before
buying them.
Chumly3
Chumly3
> What's wrong with a ceremony based on the God in "in God we trust" on
>money,and the God in "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
> Same God is it not? Not budda or some other crazy group.Just the God that
>was with the forefather's that built this Country.
>bam...@ionet.net
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1037/
>
ways ,so often to please many different people and religions. Why can't
you just accept him in any form or religion?
Chumly3
Del
>Del wrote:
>>
>
>Why outlaw not in jail?
No comprende. You want to work on that one
for a while and re-submit it?
--
E-mail: remove NOSPAM from jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net
Ted Holden
On 29 Aug 1997 13:45:08 GMT, magney@winnie (Michael S Agney) wrote:
[...stupid insults, i.e. entire post deleted...]
Anybody wishing to see the real reason why we no longer have animals
larger than the largest elephants is invited to peruse:
http://access.digex.com/~medved/dinosaurs.html
Again, I no longer debate that sort of thing with idiots; with the www
there, why should I have to?
Ted Holden
med...@access.digex.com
Steven Wright
In article <jfacts-1708...@1cust11.max2.santa-
clara.ca.ms.uu.net>, Del <jfa...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> writes
>In article <33f4e6be...@news.wco.com>, Here wrote:
>
>
>> May I join the fray.
>
>"Join in" yeah right. You're a hit and run fundy. I can
>smell it. I'm betting you don't have the courage of
>your convictions, pal.
>
>> Concerning Evolution, I'm no rocket scientist, but.... Where may I ask
>>is "any" proof what so ever, that anyone or anything has ever "Evolved" In the
>>animal kingdom or mans world?
>
>Science doesn't deal in "proof." Never has. However the
>amount of evidence for evolution is enormous, just mind
>boggling. To answer your question - yes. Speciation -
>times. Sorry to bitterly disappoint you.
>
>>that can be pointed out to be in the process of evolution?
>
>How could bones be in the process of evolution? Otherwise
>your question is a straw man.
>
>
>What, no intermediate
>>transitions to be found. Nope.
>
Rubbish. The proof that mammals evolved from reptiles can be more or
less proved by the existance of fossils of mammal like reptiles, with
mammalian features such as hair and whiskers and warm blood, but a
reptillian jaw and teeth.
>Who told you that lie? Do you want the (partial) list
>of transitional forms? The first half is about 30 pages
>long. I think I'll just go ahead and send it to you
>anyway.
>
>Why? Because evolution is a hypothesist [sic] clothed
>>in sheeps' clothing as the truth. Hypothesis is not fact or truth, but a
>tool to
>>"Think" what might be the answer without empirical facts, an assumption.
>
>You don't know what you are talking about. Evolution is
>both a fact and a theory - a theory every bit as
>scientifically solid as the theory of gravity. Do you
>want me to prove that you are uninformed on the
>subject? Here you go: tell us the simple, one sentence
>definition of evolution - the one used in biology. I
>would be pleased if you proved me wrong by knowing the
>answer but I am sure you don't. If I am right then you
>don't even know what you are attacking - demonstrating
>my point that you don't know what you are talking
>about.
>
>> Here is some empirical scientific facts that point more to the existence
>>of a Creator then to hap hazard circumstances, or evolution.
>
Every fact I've ever seen on this subject points to evolution, not a
creator. Face it...You have no idea what you're talking about.
>You'll have to show why anyone should accept your
>assertion that your conclusion is true. Just saying
>"this proves it" doesn't prove it.
>
>[ phony "proof" omitted ]
>
>There is more than meets the eye to
>>the existence of man on this little ball of mud. It "was" designed to support
>>Human life and no other reason.
>
Rubbish. I suppose all those horrid diseases, volcanoes, earthquakes,
floods, mosquitos etc. are clear evidence of this rather mysterious
'design' Are you joking or are you insane?
>Really! Is that why there are so many different species
>of cockroaches?
>
> That is unless you hold to the latest ,Uhm,
>>hypothesis from the evolutionist;
>
>Again you don't have a clue as to what you are talking
>about.
>
>> Secondly, There "Is" plenty of proof of the existence of Christ and his
>>life,
>
You have said something right!! However, I exist for certain, and I am
not the son of 'God' and have not risen from the dead, even if I claimed
to be. All the Bible prooves is that somebody claimed to be divine, no
more.
>Baloney. Do you have any kind of evidence at all for
>the things you say?
>
>> not just from the religious side, the Bible, but from many other cultures
>>that have nothing but contempt for Christianity or Judaism.
>
>We await your evidence for this with bated breath.
>
> The Bible on the
>>other hand "has" been proven factually and historically correct by many set out
>>to disprove it on many points.
>
>In that case you must also believe in the ascension of
>Augustus Caesar into heaven since at least one
>historically accurate tome of the day said the entire
>Roman Senate witnessed and testified to this
>occurrence. (Oh, oh! Watch as the Christian double
>standards kick in!)
>
>> So if your going to say that something taught in a classroom should be
>>based on facts proven to be true and not supposition or hypothesis, you will
>>have to agree that the Bible is the one of the two to be taught.
>
I am still not familiar with this other subject that is not based on
facts
>("one of the two" what?) Actually you would first have
>to make a viable argument to that effect (sorry. I know
>you expect special treatment). It might also help if
>you learned a bit about science - especially the
>definitions of words like theory, fact, hypothesis, and
>evolution. I predict you won't, however. You are afraid
>to - especially WRT the def of evolution. Your failure
>to learn it will prove my point.
>
There is no doubt in my mind that facts should be taught in schools, and
as far as anybody with any sense at all is concerned, that includes the
virtually prooven tjheory of evolution. After all, The Theory Gravity
is a theory but that is taught. The only reason you object to the
teaching of evolution is because you want to continue to force your
children into following your clearly flawed beliefs.
--
Steven Wright
Truth, Facts and Atheism
John Wonderly
when do we evolve and into what?
Joshua Halpern
In alt.politics.democrats.d John Wonderly <jrw...@mail.fwi.com> wrote:
: when do we evolve and into what?
Civilized humans?
jost halpern
Sorry, who could resist.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:59:39 GMT, med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
announced to all:
>On 29 Aug 1997 13:45:08 GMT, magney@winnie (Michael S Agney) wrote:
>
>[...stupid insults, i.e. entire post deleted...]
>
>Anybody wishing to see the real reason why we no longer have animals
>larger than the largest elephants is invited to peruse:
I believe the Blue Whale is larger than an elephant. And the Blue Whale is
an animal.
Raist
Richard Evans
Try my webpage! http://www.webspawner.com/users/RichardEvans
> >Del wrote:
> >
> >Why outlaw not in jail?
>
>
> No comprende. You want to work on that one
> for a while and re-submit it?
>
RE-he meant "why is an outlaw teaching evolution instead of being in jail".
he was using "outlaw" as a noun, instead of a verb, like "Why Clinton
teaching evolution" / "Why Clinton not in jail"
ps-the answer to the second question is "Janet Reno"....
Ted Holden
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 23:42:17 GMT,
Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere,
Archmage) wrote:
The very obvious intent was <land animals>. The blue whale is a case
in point for my claim that gravity is now the limiting factor; in the
oceans, where water bouyancy countermands the effects of gravity,
animals can still reach those kinds of sizes.
Ted Holden
med...@access.digex.com
Steven Wright
In article <34099B...@mail.fwi.com>, John Wonderly
<jrw...@mail.fwi.com> writes
>when do we evolve and into what?
more that survive, the slower the process. The process only ever works
over periods of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, so with
humans it is so slow that it is virtually non existant, making the rest
of your question void.
--
Steven Wright
Brandon M. Gorte
Added to talk.origins because Ted REALLY needs help. :-)
Ted Holden (med...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere,
: Archmage) wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:59:39 GMT, med...@access.digex.net (Ted Holden)
: >announced to all:
: >
: >>On 29 Aug 1997 13:45:08 GMT, magney@winnie (Michael S Agney) wrote:
: >>
: >>[...stupid insults, i.e. entire post deleted...]
: >>
: >>Anybody wishing to see the real reason why we no longer have animals
: >>larger than the largest elephants is invited to peruse:
: >
: > I believe the Blue Whale is larger than an elephant. And the Blue Whale is
: >an animal.
:
: The very obvious intent was <land animals>. The blue whale is a case
: in point for my claim that gravity is now the limiting factor; in the
: oceans, where water bouyancy countermands the effects of gravity,
: animals can still reach those kinds of sizes.
Ted, why did you try circumventing your original words with apologetic
speech???
If it is so that nothing can be bigger than an elephant, then why do
redwoods and sequoias grow? Do you even have a reasonable answer? If
so, post it, and we shall discuss it, if you so choose to listen. Show
us the calculations here, please, Ted.
I also notice that the bat has flown the coop. :-)
Brandon Gorte
Undergrad in Geological Engineering
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
><DARWIN>
L L