Darwin And Wallace Admit: World Wide Flood Of Biblical Proportions
AllSeeing-I
species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
No one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of
species" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier,
1962, p. 341).
Darwin was referring to his five-year cruise as amateur naturalist
aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In his notes he revealed WHY he and the
paleontologists of today, "are puzzled by the record of catastrophic
death found in the rocks."
"What then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera?" Darwin
asked in astonishment. "The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into
the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals,
both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the
Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's [Bering's]
Straits, WE MUST SHAKE THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF THE GLOBE" (Charles
Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of
the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the
World, citation under date of January 9, 1834).
The same thought of violent catastrophe struck Alfred Russel Wallace
in the latter 1800's. Non scientists today generally do not know very
much about Wallace. He, in fact, developed the idea of biological
evolution simultaneously with Darwin, Had Darwin not been persuaded to
publish his ideas when he did, Wallace would have beat him to the
punch and published first. As it turned out, both of them read their
papers at the same meeting to avert any possible bad feelings.
In 1876, Wallace wrote, "We live in a zoologically impoverished world,
from which all the hugest, and fiercest, and strangest forms have
recently disappeared ... yet it is surely a marvelous fact, and one
that has hardly been sufficiently dwelt upon, this sudden dying out of
so many large Mammalia, not in one place only but over half the land
surface of the globe" (Alfred Russel Wallace, Geographical
Distribution of Animals, New York: Hafner, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 150).
Wallace's immediate conclusion was that, "There must have been some
physical cause for this great change; and it must have been a cause
capable of acting almost simultaneously over large portions of the
earth's surface" (Ibid., p. 151).
Especially puzzling were the fossils of extinct animals in the deep
Alaskan muck beds. Equally perplexing was the Siberian record. The
evidence at face value told a story of violent catastrophe. The record
demanded area-wide, continent-wide - indeed WORLDWIDE - and
simultaneous catastrophe.
Equally perplexing was the mysterious extinction of horses in North
America. About a decade ago, eminent paleontologist G. G. Simpson was
discussing this problem. It was a real head-scratcher. When horses
were reintroduced into the hemisphere, they increased marvelously. If
the present climate and terrain is so favorable, what caused their
extinction in the prehistoric period?
To George Gaylord Simpson, it was "one of the most mysterious episodes
of animal history."
The worldwide destruction of mammal life is clearly evident in the
Siwalik Hills. These are the foothills of the mighty Himalayas, in the
nation of India.
In the nineteenth century, workers found the remains of living and
extinct animals in great abundance. When one examines the strata, it
appears as though all these vast numbers of animals SUDDENLY came on
the scene.
"This sudden bursting on the stage of such a varied population," says
geologist D. N. Wadia, "of herbivores, carnivores, rodents and of
primates, the highest order of the mammals, must be regarded as a most
remarkable instance of rapid evolution of species" (D. N. Wadia,
Geology of India, 2nd edition, London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1939,
p. 268).
This was NO local disaster. Thirteen hundred miles away the same
spectre of sudden and wholesale slaughter is seen. The place is
central Burma. Here two fossiliferous horizons occur, interrupted by
approximately 4000 feet of sand.
The signs of two destructions are quite obvious in deposits sometimes
10,000 feet thick.
In the upper horizon, we find typical Pleistocene mammals, similar to
those in the Siwalik Hills.
"The sediments are remarkable for the large quantities of fossil-wood
associated with them. . . Hundreds and thousands of entire trunks of
silicified trees and huge logs lying in the sandstones suggest the
denudation of thickly forested" areas (Ibid., p. 275).
So striking is this evidence, that it led scientist Rhodes W.
Fairbridge to make the following statement in Scientific American;
"A deluge such as that described in the Book of Genesis occurs in the
legends and folklore of almost every ancient people. . . .
"Such agreement among the legends of so many peoples living in distant
parts of the world has caused scholars in modern times to wonder
WHETHER mankind did in truth experience the worldwide catastrophe of a
deluge" (Rhodes W. Fairbridge, "The Changing Level of the Sea,"
Scientific American, Vol. 202, No. 5, May, I960, p. 70).
But few people, it seems, have thoroughly looked into, the Genesis
account to see what it really says. Pre-historians would be amazed to
find the Bible actually explains many aspects of the geological record
which seem paradoxical.
Genesis 7:11 (King James Version)
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of
the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
There is the answer
http://cog-ff.com/Library/html/worldwide_mammal_massacre.html
us4...@att.net
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of
>species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
>
>No one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of
>species" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier,
>1962, p. 341).
>
>Darwin was referring to his five-year cruise as amateur naturalist
>aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In his notes he revealed WHY he and the
>paleontologists of today, "are puzzled by the record of catastrophic
>death found in the rocks."
>
>"What then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera?" Darwin
>asked in astonishment. "The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into
>the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals,
>both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the
>Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's [Bering's]
>Straits, WE MUST SHAKE THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF THE GLOBE" (Charles
>Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of
>the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the
>World, citation under date of January 9, 1834).
>........
Like many atheists here, Darwin turned away from his
Christian faith. Then he set out to find something to fill
the empty void......
"It is not commonly known that Charles Darwin, while a
naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft
in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into
the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a
result, something happened to him. Upon his return to
England, although his health was strangely weakened, he
spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy
faith in the Creator."
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19960
US4Zion
R Brown
"AllSeeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:89c8971a-551e-4389...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
biggee and it happened 250 million years ago. There is no physical evidence,
or any physical theory, for a single, global flood causing a mass extinction
within the last 10,000 years. I think geologists would have surely found it
by now. What's that you say Maddy? A conspiracy? That's why I say ...
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of
>species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
>
>No one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of
>species" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier,
>1962, p. 341).
>
>Darwin was referring to his five-year cruise as amateur naturalist
>aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. In his notes he revealed WHY he and the
>paleontologists of today, "are puzzled by the record of catastrophic
>death found in the rocks."
Darwin may have been, but "the paleontologists of today" aren't. Do
you ever bother to research anything before you post about it?
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
That unreliable source is better than your usual farcical claims, but
you still haven't supported your claim.
us4...@att.net
Not my claim. It's out there for public consumption.
US4Zion
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Why bother to post it if you deny supporting it after you are called on
it?
Sapient Fridge
<89c8971a-551e-4389...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of
>species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
We know of 5 major extinction events, and we know when they happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events
None of them involved any kind of worldwide flood, and all of them
happened many millions of years ago.
Humans appear to be causing the 6th major extinction event, through over
hunting, habitat destruction and climate change.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
AllSeeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <89c8971a-551e-4389-bc17-4fa0becb5...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> >In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of
> >species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
>
> We know of 5 major extinction events, and we know when they happened:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events
>
> None of them involved any kind of worldwide flood, and all of them
> happened many millions of years ago.
This is only true if the dating methods are 100% reliable, which they
are not.
R Brown
Perfection again. Perfection is an illusion especially in the field of
measurement. Every measure has an associated degree of error. Reliability
refers to attaining the same results through repetition of the measure.
That's why I have my high school science students repeat their procedure
several times and attain several measures of the same event. We then check
for reliability. Consistent measures indicate that we have likely got a
correct measure. There is occassionally the odd "wacko" measure attained
through some error in procedure, calibration or measurement reading. We
discard those.
Here's what the creationist does: he retains those obviously "off" measures
and then claims that radiometric dating is inaccurate. He really does demand
that all measures be perfect and that no experimental error should ever
happen. Such child-like simplicity.
It's painfully, painfully obvious that you never took a proper science
course or else you'd know this. Actually, through the years of discourse
that you've been involved with, you do already know this by now. The fact
that you continue to repeat your distortions and misrepresentations as to
how science works simply demonstrates your desperation. That's why I say ...
Sapient Fridge
<c65161b4-60ed-453b...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
You have rather a lot of science to overturn, radiometric dating is
rather solid and well understood:
http://www.sapientfridge.org/cambrian/science_papers/radiometric_dating/027ns_003.htm
So where is your evidence that it's all wrong?
panam...@hotmail.com
But it's with 100% reliability that you'll say something this stupid.
-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
Larry Hewitt
They are reliable enough at the million year level.
Larry
AllSeeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <c65161b4-60ed-453b-a73e-e1ece2a03...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 25, 2:04 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <89c8971a-551e-4389-bc17-4fa0becb5...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> >> AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> >> >In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of
> >> >species has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
>
> >> We know of 5 major extinction events, and we know when they happened:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events
>
> >> None of them involved any kind of worldwide flood, and all of them
> >> happened many millions of years ago.
>
> >This is only true if the dating methods are 100% reliable, which they
> >are not.
>
> You have rather a lot of science to overturn,
This is the problem in a nut shell. Rather than follow the evidence
where it leads, lets keep all of the errors.
radiometric dating is
> rather solid and well understood:
Understood? Perhaps. Solid? No. It is very posible the Giza Pyramids
are much older then the dating methids claim
> http://www.sapientfridge.org/cambrian/science_papers/radiometric_dati...
>
> So where is your evidence that it's all wrong?
Stuff you are too dumb to understand.
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob LeChevalier
>Wallace's immediate conclusion was that, "There must have been some
>physical cause for this great change; and it must have been a cause
>capable of acting almost simultaneously over large portions of the
>earth's surface" (Ibid., p. 151).
And we now know a couple of such causes. Volcanism and meteorite
strikes.
>Especially puzzling were the fossils of extinct animals in the deep
>Alaskan muck beds. Equally perplexing was the Siberian record. The
>evidence at face value told a story of violent catastrophe. The record
>demanded area-wide, continent-wide - indeed WORLDWIDE - and
>simultaneous catastrophe.
Sorry, but "the Siberian record" can only "demand" a Siberian
catastrophe, not a "worldwide" one.
>Equally perplexing was the mysterious extinction of horses in North
>America. About a decade ago, eminent paleontologist G. G. Simpson was
>discussing this problem. It was a real head-scratcher. When horses
>were reintroduced into the hemisphere, they increased marvelously. If
>the present climate and terrain is so favorable, what caused their
>extinction in the prehistoric period?
The climate and terrain changed, dummy. Ever heard of the ice age(s)?
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/extinction-176.shtml
>So striking is this evidence, that it led scientist Rhodes W.
>Fairbridge to make the following statement in Scientific American;
>
>"A deluge such as that described in the Book of Genesis occurs in the
>legends and folklore of almost every ancient people. . . .
Except of course his interpretation was that it referred to a rise in
sea level due to climate change, and not a rainstorm of 40 days and 40
nights.
>But few people, it seems, have thoroughly looked into, the Genesis
>account to see what it really says.
It says nonsense.
> 11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the
>seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of
>the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Which is NOT what Rhodes Fairchild said.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
AllSeeing-I
You obviously have not studied the evidence. Tropical plants mixed in
with the remains of animals that died suddenly, but were quickly
buried as to even preserve the food that was in their digestive track
is discovered in the northern regions? The best explanation for this
is a continent shift, described in the bible as the fountains of the
great deep breaking up.
This happened during the days of Peleg. His very name means "when the
earth became divided". It was typical of ancient people to name a
child to remember important events. During this break up the mountain
ranges were formed, the great canyon was born, and other anomalies
around the planet were created.
You guys can kick and scream all that you want. The probability of a
world wide catastrophe that resulted in world wide flooding is quite
high. So much so, that you can take it to the bank. All the evidence
has been assembled into one web site, which was provided in the OP.
Read it and weep.
It is not humanity's fault that a hand full of people desire to
suppress the truth because they do not want to rewrite the textbooks,
or because they would have everyone believing man is descended from an
ape.
What are they afraid of? I bet I know. The existence of GOD
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
No, it's not a meaningful explanation at all. If you knew any science,
you would be shocked at how silly you sound.
us4...@att.net
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Can you disprove it?
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
Only a lesbian would say something so stupid. Utter
ignorance. Yeah "because I say so". The mantra of carpet
munchers everywhere.
Christians and Jews make up the majority of the top 100
Scientists of all time...
"The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A
Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and
Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith
Simmons."
1 Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution Anglican
(believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
3 Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran
4 Charles Darwin Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic
6 Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious
Jewish; Atheist; Freudian psychoanalysis (Freudianism)
7 Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
8 Antoine Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
9 Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran
10 Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe
Catholic (priest)
11 Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory
Sandemanian
12 James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field
Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
13 Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology 14
Franz Boas Modern Anthropology Jewish
15 Werner Heisenberg Quantum Theory Lutheran
16 Linus Pauling Twentieth-Century ChemistryLutheran
17 Rudolf Virchow the Cell Doctrine
18 Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic
19 Ernest Rutherford the Structure of the Atom 20
Paul Dirac Quantum Electrodynamics
21 Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic
22 Tycho Brahe the New Astronomy Lutheran
23 Comte de Buffon l'Histoire Naturelle
24 Ludwig Boltzmann Thermodynamics
25 Max Planck the Quanta Protestant
26 Marie Curie RadioactivityCatholic (lapsed)
27 William Herschel the Discovery of the Heavens Jewish
28 Charles Lyell Modern Geology
29 Pierre Simon de Laplace Newtonian Mechanics
atheist
30 Edwin Hubble the Modern Telescope
31 Joseph J. Thomson the Discovery of the
Electron
32 Max Born Quantum Mechanics Jewish Lutheran
33 Francis Crick Molecular Biologyatheist
34 Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics Catholic
35 Leonard Euler Eighteenth-Century Mathematics
Calvinist
36 Justus Liebig Nineteenth-Century Chemistry
37 Arthur EddingtonModern Astronomy Quaker
38 William Harvey Circulation of the Blood Anglican
(nominal)
39 Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy Catholic
40 Christiaan Huygens the Wave Theory of Light
Calvinist
41 Carl Gauss Mathematical Genius Lutheran
42 Albrecht von Haller Eighteenth-Century Medicine
43 August Kekule Chemical Structure
44 Robert Koch Bacteriology
45 Murray Gell-Mann the Eightfold WayJewish
46 Emil Fischer Organic Chemistry
47 Dmitri Mendeleev the Periodic Table of Elements 48
Sheldon Glashow the Discovery of Charm Jewish
49 James Watson the Structure of DNA atheist
50 John Bardeen Superconductivity
51 John von Neumann the Modern Computer Jewish
Catholic
52 Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics
Jewish
53 Alfred Wegener Continental Drift
54 Stephen Hawking Quantum Cosmology atheist
55 Anton van Leeuwenhoek the Simple Microscope Dutch
Reformed
56 Max von Laue X-ray Crystallography
57 Gustav Kirchhoff Spectroscopy
58 Hans Bethe the Energy of the Sun Jewish
59 Euclid the Foundations of Mathematics Platonism /
Greek philosophy
60 Gregor Mendel the Laws of Inheritance Catholic
(Augustinian monk)
61 Heike Kamerlingh Onnes Superconductivity
62 Thomas Hunt Morgan the Chromosomal Theory of
Heredity
63 Hermann von Helmholtz the Rise of German Science
64 Paul Ehrlich Chemotherapy Jewish
65 Ernst Mayr Evolutionary Theory atheist
66 Charles Sherrington Neurophysiology
67 Theodosius Dobzhansky the Modern Synthesis Russian
Orthodox
68 Max Delbruck the Bacteriophage
69 Jean Baptiste Lamarck the Foundations of Biology
70 William Bayliss Modern Physiology
71 Noam Chomsky Twentieth-Century Linguistics Jewish
atheist
72 Frederick Sanger the Genetic Code
73 Lucretius Scientific Thinking Epicurean;
atheist
74 John Dalton the Theory of the Atom Quaker
75 Louis Victor de Broglie Wave/Particle
Duality
76 Carl Linnaeus the Binomial Nomenclature
Christianity
77 Jean Piaget Child Development
78 George Gaylord Simpson the Tempo of Evolution
79 Claude Levi-Strauss Structural Anthropology
Jewish
80 Lynn Margulis Symbiosis Theory Jewish
81 Karl Landsteiner the Blood Groups Jewish
82 Konrad Lorenz Ethology
83 Edward O. Wilson Sociobiology
84 Frederick Gowland Hopkins Vitamins
85 Gertrude Belle Elion Pharmacology
86 Hans Selye the Stress Concept
87 J. Robert Oppenheimer the Atomic Era Jewish
88 Edward Teller the Bomb Jewish
89 Willard Libby Radioactive Dating
90 Ernst Haeckel the Biogenetic Principle
91 Jonas Salk Vaccination Jewish
92 Emil Kraepelin Twentieth-Century Psychiatry
93 Trofim Lysenko Soviet Genetics Russian Orthodox
94 Francis Galton Eugenics
95 Alfred Binet the I.Q. Test
96 Alfred Kinsey Human Sexuality atheist
97 Alexander Fleming Penicillin Catholic
98 B. F. Skinner Behaviorism atheist
99 Wilhelm Wundt the Founding of Psychology atheist
100 Archimedes the Beginning of Science Greek
philosophy
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Listen up all ye infidels. I have nothing against you but am
merely trying to save you from these lying lesbian
metrtosexual perverts.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:ismc07h3bicrqqn58...@4ax.com:
The demand to prove a negative.
Always the sign of a failed argument........
Olrik
Also the sign of a failed human being...
harry k
The dating methods would have to be 100% _wrong_ in order for your
mythical flood to work.
Harry K
harry k
<snip>
The Gize pyramids alone show your flood didn't happen. They show no
signs of having been submerged for a year...actually not even a day.
Harry K
BFFJesus
>
>US4Zion
>
Oh my gawd! I luv your new look darling!
Who says you can't accessorize batshit bible crazy
with top 100 scientists lists?
Psycho is definitely the new sane!
Ab fab! You go girl!
Sapient Fridge
<fef50dd3-0918-4a0a...@d22g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
<snip>
>radiometric dating is
>> rather solid and well understood:
>
>Understood? Perhaps. Solid? No. It is very posible the Giza Pyramids
>are much older then the dating methids claim
And your evidence for that is...where?
If the pyramids are much older than people think then that would mean
there were there when the flood happened (in your fantasy world). In
which case how did all the painted walls, papyrus scrolls and woodwork
in the tombs survive all that time underwater?
>> http://www.sapientfridge.org/cambrian/science_papers/radiometric_dati...
>>
>> So where is your evidence that it's all wrong?
>
>
>Stuff you are too dumb to understand.
Why not just admit that all you have left is insults and assertions? It
would be much simpler and you would have less to type.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Buddythunder
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
His raging Dunning-Kruger syndrome is what keeps ASI fun! Otherwise it
would just be the sad spectacle of a very wrong man ranting from
street corners. In reality it's the same scene, but he says it with
such unshakeable confidence that you can't help but like the guy and
his hypocritical lies and fantasies.
Buddythunder
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:23:27 -0500, us4z...@att.net wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:36:49 -0500, Free Lunch
> ><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because it smears someone credible but who is seen as an opponent.
Thought I'd field this one, as the theist wasn't looking too honest
about it.
AllSeeing-I
Colanth
You evidently do, or you wouldn't have typed up a post in which to
misrepresent what he claimed.
--
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And everyone
said, "Hey, cool! Do You do parties?"
MarkA
> In his book The Origin of Species Darwin wrote, "The extinction of species
> has been involved in the most gratuitous mystery.
>
> No one can have marveled more than I have at the extinction of species"
> (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: Collier, 1962, p. 341).
>
Ironically, it was the church that help expose the mystery of extinctions.
During the Middle Ages, conventional wisdom (an oxymoron if ever there was
one!) held that the more God liked your village, the more blessings He
would bestow upon you. The way to demonstrate, in a tangible way, how
much you loved God was to build a cathedral, that was bigger and
more ornate than your neighbor's. Kind of like kids trying to impress
their mom with who drew the fanciest Mother's Day card.
So, with all the cathedral building going on, a lot of rock had to be
quarried, which led to a lot of strange bones being found. Bones inside
rocks? That seemed strange. Even stranger when it was realized that the
bones were not like those of any animal that was known to be alive at the
time.
This lead to the first big controversy regarding ancient life and
evolution: was it possible for animals to become extinct? At the time, it
seemed to be a preposterous idea. If God made an animal as part of the
Creation, it must have had a part to play in The Plan, so He would not
allow it to die out. Others argued that having animals become extinct
could very well be part of The Plan. Who were we to say?
So the controversy raged, until it became obvious that these animals were
not still living in some unexplored corner of Africa. Now we know that
over 99% of all species ever alive are extinct. Life is ever changing,
and evolution is part of that change.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Malte Runz
news:fef50dd3-0918-4a0a...@d22g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
This is a great example of your mental inadequacies. You'll probably not get
it, but here it is anyway: You can use radiometric dating to date the rocks,
not to determine when the pyramids were build. (And no, they didn't use
'fresh' or 'newly formed' stones)
>
> > http://www.sapientfridge.org/cambrian/science_papers/radiometric_dati...
> >
> > So where is your evidence that it's all wrong?
>
>
> Stuff you are too dumb to understand.
Yes, Sir. Radiometric dating of the pyramids... As I wrote not long ago, we
don't have to manipulate your words or your intend, you still sound like
loonies.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
news:73b996ee-48f1-4a1c...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Not only dating methods. Our entire understanding of how the physical world
behaves has to be wrong.
>
> Harry K
--
Malte Runz
Bob LeChevalier
>You obviously have not studied the evidence.
Probably better than you have.
>Tropical plants mixed in
>with the remains of animals that died suddenly, but were quickly
>buried as to even preserve the food that was in their digestive track
>is discovered in the northern regions? The best explanation for this
>is a continent shift, described in the bible as the fountains of the
>great deep breaking up.
That sounds like a rather stretched interpretation of the Bible, as
well as of the evidence.
We know that 120 million years ago, dinosaurs lived at the South Pole.
Obviously, the South Pole wasn't frigid back then. Tropical areas
were of course much warmer. But the area once at the South Pole is
now Australia, which isn't even close.
>This happened during the days of Peleg.
No it didn't. Those tropical plants greatly predate man.
>His very name means "when the
>earth became divided". It was typical of ancient people to name a
>child to remember important events. During this break up the mountain
>ranges were formed, the great canyon was born, and other anomalies
>around the planet were created.
Pure unadulterated nonsense.
>You guys can kick and scream all that you want. The probability of a
>world wide catastrophe that resulted in world wide flooding is
zero.
Budikka
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:04:53 -0500, Free Lunch
>
>
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:41:13 -0700 (PDT), AllSeeing-I
The problem with your list is that *not* *a* single* *person* on it
contributed to science using religion, divine revelaiton, prayer, or
the Bible. Every last one of them made their scientific contributions
by following the scientific method. Given that your religion forbids
your from bearing false witness, why would you dishonestly try
misrepresent the truth?
I'll be happy to learn more about your creator if you'll consent to
witness for him. Isn't that what you're supposed to do? So why don't
you and I have an exchange on the merits of the Theory of Evolution
versus your creation beliefs right here in this thread?
You start by posting one item of positive scientific evidence for a
creation and I'll repsond by likewise posting one for evolution, and
we'll continue in that fashion and see which of us runs out first,
shall we? We'll then know who is the best wtiness, too, won't we?
Budikka
All-Seeing-|
Everyone on the list was guided by God.
Learn it. Live it. Love it
SkyEyes
Before you can claim that, [M]Addy, you have to prove that this "God"
character *actually exists*.
>
> Learn it. Live it. Love it
When are you going to start supporting your assertions with actual
evidence?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Bob LeChevalier
>The problem with your list is that *not* *a* single* *person* on it
>contributed to science using religion, divine revelaiton, prayer, or
>the Bible.
To be honest (your stated priority), much of Newton's work was based
in Biblical mysticism, and was at least quasi-religious in nature.
Much of his "scientific" product was the product of special insight
and reason and analysis, not experiment, though he certainly did use
the scientific method at times.
It is of course impossible to say whether insight comes from a
supernatural source or something else.
>Given that your religion forbids
>your from bearing false witness, why would you dishonestly try
>misrepresent the truth?
He apparently doesn't consider it false witness to lie to enemies of
his religion. And some Christians don't consider anyone their
neighbor merely because they are a member of homo sapiens, so they
feel perfectly free to bear false witness, or to covet their stuff and
their women.
Bob LeChevalier
>Everyone on the list was guided by God.
Your evidence is lacking, and indeed non-existent, since you cannot
provide evidence of any God.
Especially since you probably exclude other scientists like Dawkins
who reject God as being "guided by God" when they come up with
scientific insights.
Christopher A. Lee
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Budikka <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>The problem with your list is that *not* *a* single* *person* on it
>>contributed to science using religion, divine revelaiton, prayer, or
>>the Bible.
>
>To be honest (your stated priority), much of Newton's work was based
>in Biblical mysticism, and was at least quasi-religious in nature.
>Much of his "scientific" product was the product of special insight
>and reason and analysis, not experiment, though he certainly did use
>the scientific method at times.
He didn't contribute to science using religion though.
He started off theist and revised his beliefs in the light of what he
found, become a mechanist, an early form of deist who believed in a
god that set things in motion and left the universe to its own devices
according to the rules he had discovered.
>It is of course impossible to say whether insight comes from a
>supernatural source or something else.
However there is no reason even to consider this alleged
"supernatural".
How many Christians expect non-Christians to take their supernatural
claims seriously when they themselves dismiss those from all the other
religions?
Feel free to demonstrate this hypothetical "supernatural" before
presuming it.
And if you can't, don't even bring it up.
Especially where you know it isn't granted a priori.
>>Given that your religion forbids
>>your from bearing false witness, why would you dishonestly try
>>misrepresent the truth?
>
>He apparently doesn't consider it false witness to lie to enemies of
>his religion. And some Christians don't consider anyone their
>neighbor merely because they are a member of homo sapiens, so they
>feel perfectly free to bear false witness, or to covet their stuff and
>their women.
Whatever their motive, they don't seem to understand that it _is_ a
lie and is seen as such by their audience.
And they get mortally offended when it is treated as such - hence
further lies about "all you do bias call people you disagree with,
liars".
All-Seeing-|
Insights? You mean fabrications, distortions of the evidence, and
mis-interpretations of the facts.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Everyone on the list was guided by God.
>>
>> Your evidence is lacking, and indeed non-existent, since you cannot
>> provide evidence of any God.
>>
>> Especially since you probably exclude other scientists like Dawkins
>> who reject God as being "guided by God" when they come up with
>> scientific insights.
>
>mis-interpretations of the facts.
Displaying your ignorance about science again, I see.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:50:26 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Budikka <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>The problem with your list is that *not* *a* single* *person* on it
>>>contributed to science using religion, divine revelaiton, prayer, or
>>>the Bible.
>>
>>To be honest (your stated priority), much of Newton's work was based
>>in Biblical mysticism, and was at least quasi-religious in nature.
>>Much of his "scientific" product was the product of special insight
>>and reason and analysis, not experiment, though he certainly did use
>>the scientific method at times.
>
>He didn't contribute to science using religion though.
For some definitions of "religion", perhaps.
He spent years, during which most of his output was as I said
quasi-religious in nature. When he produced works of science, they
were by-products of his main focus, which was mysticism.
>>It is of course impossible to say whether insight comes from a
>>supernatural source or something else.
>
>However there is no reason even to consider this alleged
>"supernatural".
>
>How many Christians expect non-Christians to take their supernatural
>claims seriously when they themselves dismiss those from all the other
>religions?
I don't for one, and I don't claim to speak for any other.
But why does it matter? Feel free not to take supernatural claims
seriously. Just like I don't take ideological claims in politics
seriously.
>Feel free to demonstrate this hypothetical "supernatural" before
>presuming it.
Why should I? I don't expect to change your mind.
The issue I Posted on was about what motivated Mr Newton and drive or
guided his scientific work. Anyone who pretends that his religious
beliefs and investigations weren't significant is trying to rewrite
history.
I am not Newton. You are not Newton. Other Christians are not
Newton.
>And if you can't, don't even bring it up.
>
>Especially where you know it isn't granted a priori.
Religion is important in many human lives even if none of it is
factual. And while religion has led to evil, it has also led to good.
>>>Given that your religion forbids
>>>your from bearing false witness, why would you dishonestly try
>>>misrepresent the truth?
>>
>>He apparently doesn't consider it false witness to lie to enemies of
>>his religion. And some Christians don't consider anyone their
>>neighbor merely because they are a member of homo sapiens, so they
>>feel perfectly free to bear false witness, or to covet their stuff and
>>their women.
>
>Whatever their motive, they don't seem to understand that it _is_ a
>lie and is seen as such by their audience.
YOU aren't their audience. Like "liberals" that appear on Faux News,
YOU are part of the entertainment for their real audience.
That is one reason that, while they may post to alt.atheism, they
usually also crosspost to some other forum that is sure to have a lot
of the religious Reich reading. By crossposting, they have dragged
you onto their stage (at least if you respond).
All-Seeing-|
> "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone on the list was guided by God.
>>>
>>> Your evidence is lacking, and indeed non-existent, since you cannot
>>> provide evidence of any God.
>>>
>>> Especially since you probably exclude other scientists like Dawkins
>>> who reject God as being "guided by God" when they come up with
>>> scientific insights.
>>
>> Insights? You mean fabrications, distortions of the evidence, and
>> mis-interpretations of the facts.
>
> Displaying your ignorance about science again, I see.
>
THATS IT? that is all you got?
This is the standard atheist answer #213
It dont hold water
Budikka
> Evolution is a religion... not science.
So why don't you and I discuss that? Let's see if what you said here
is true; let's see who has the science shall we? I mean, you're a
pretty poor witness for your god if you can't back up what you say and
if you *run* when challenged.
Why don't you start by posting one item of positive scientific
evidence for a
creation and I'll respond by likewise posting one for evolution, and
we'll continue in that fashion and see which of us runs out first,
shall we?
Then we'll know who has the religion, and who has the science.
Or you can admit that your statement above is a lie by simply
running. Now.
Budikka
Budikka
> Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >The problem with your list is that *not* *a* single* *person* on it
> >contributed to science using religion, divine revelaiton, prayer, or
> >the Bible.
>
> To be honest (your stated priority), much of Newton's work was based
> in Biblical mysticism,
So please, do enthrall us with your learning and give me a simple
'yes' answer or a 'no' answer to the following quesitons:
1. Did Newton work out the laws of classical mechanics through
prayer, or through using the scientific method?
2. Did Newton work out the laws of classical mechanics through divine
revelation, or through using the scientific method?
3. Did Newton work out the laws of classical mechanics through
reading his Bible, or through using the scientific method?
4. Did Newton work out the laws of classical mechanics through
attending church, or through using the scientific method?
5. Did Newton work out the laws of classical mechanics through
Biblical literalism, or through using the scientific method?
I think if you answer those questions honestly, you truly will have a
revelation.
Budikka
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> "All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>> Everyone on the list was guided by God.
>>>>
>>>> Your evidence is lacking, and indeed non-existent, since you cannot
>>>> provide evidence of any God.
>>>>
>>>> Especially since you probably exclude other scientists like Dawkins
>>>> who reject God as being "guided by God" when they come up with
>>>> scientific insights.
>>>
>>> Insights? You mean fabrications, distortions of the evidence, and
>>> mis-interpretations of the facts.
>>
>> Displaying your ignorance about science again, I see.
>
>THATS IT? that is all you got?
That is all I need, since you have nothing.
>This is the standard atheist answer #213
Odd, since I am a Christian.
Or maybe not, since you keep issuing the same stock nonsense, I'm not
sure why you expect to get a better answer.
>It dont hold water
Of course it does.
Your claims, given with no evidence, are that those scientists who
make advances in science, are "guided by God", and that those
scientists who "reject God" produce only "fabrications, distortions of
the evidence, and mis-interpretations of the facts".
You are wrong.
Bob LeChevalier
Newton did not report on what he was doing when he worked out the laws
of classical mechanics, and I would not presume to be a mind-reader. I
would not be surprised if his answer to at least one of those
questions was "both", assuming that he would not be rudely insulted by
the questions and either ignore you or insult you back. Newton was
reported a rather touchy fellow.
It is probably safe to say that "Biblical literalism" was not
relevant, since his writings don't reflect that bent. All of the
first four are possible though, ignoring your false dichotomy.
Mathematics is not done by the scientific method, and much of his
product was mathematical in nature rather than experimental, but it is
perfectly possible to go to church and use the scientific method, and
indeed they can be done at the same time. Likewise prayer, Bible
reading, and who can say about what is possible with divine
revelation.