Question Creationists Cannot Answer
God's Real Truth
>
> For many, many months I have been trying to get creationism's foremost
> spokeperson into a debate.
>
> I challenged Kent Hovind's offer for proof of evolution, which he skilfully
> evaded dealing with. I emailed him 300 creationist lies based on his _own_
> debate material. He refused to answer any of them.
>
> I reduced my challenge from 300 lies to only ten lies, and asked that he answer
> only five of the ten. He retreated behind insults and refused to answer.
>
> I finally reduced my challenge to one single question. I offered to meet him
> anywhere, any time, for a debate on any topic, before any audience of his
> choice under any conditions he cares to name if he could answer this question.
> Again he retreated behind insults and refused to answer. Obviously this
> charlatan cannot defend his material and is nothing but a fraud and a liar.
>
> I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this question
> if you can:
>
> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> which can permit immense variation within a
> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> evolution cannot occur.
>
> If you can answer this question and demonstrate it scientifically, you will
> have taken the first and only step creationism has ever made towards supporting
> its case. If you cannot, the simplest explanation must hold true - that
> evolution can and does transform species, over time, into other species.
>
> Answers may be emailed directly to me. These are to be scientifically
> supported answers, not guesswork, supposition, opinion, or proselytizing - I
> have heard all of that before. I want to know what the answer is to that
> question. Deal with it, or back off from your pathetic claims for creation and
> quit bleating.
>
> Budikka
You are a sinner doing the bidding of satan! You will burn in hell for
your evil.
" But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
people, till there was no remedy."
II Chron. 36:16
" I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he
answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that
shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
God's Real Truth
Paul Wenthold
Oh shit, you are serious! LOL!
paul
Rob
<SNIP SNIPPITY SNIP>
>" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
>that
>shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
>
>God's Real Truth
NOOO!! Don't quote the bible!!!
Curses! He found my one true weakness!!!
<PLONK> :)
god's real truth
:Lady, who specializes in administering bare bottom spankings to bad
:boys, inventive in the art of discipline
:
:" But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
:misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
:people, till there was no remedy."
:sophisticated Lady, who specializes in administering bare bottom
:spankings to bad boys, inventive in the art of discipline
:
:" I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he
:answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
:who specializes in administering bare bottom spankings to bad boys,
:inventive in the art of discipline
:
:" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
:that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7 God's Real Truth, Seeking
:very assertive and sophisticated Lady, who specializes in
administering
:bare bottom spankings to bad boys, inventive in the art of discipline
:
:God's Real Truth, Seeking very assertive and sophisticated Lady,
:who specializes in administering bare bottom spankings to bad boys,
:inventive in the art of discipline
Rune Boersjoe
>your evil.
Lord Satan, you're serious! :-)
I see you are not up to date. The pope says hell and the devil doesn't exist :-P
--
"There is no conection between owning a gun and
shooting someone and not owning a gun and not
shooting someone... there is no conection, and you'd
be a fool and a communist to make one."
-Bill Hicks
#1460
BAAWA Official Virgin Sacrifice
EAC Space Program Director
ICQ UIN: 1104409
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Dore Williamson
> :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> :> which can permit immense variation within a
> :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> :> evolution cannot occur.
Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means. Thus proving
Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For all
species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic detail
can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of physical
scientific theory.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
god's real truth <g...@pleasespankme.org> wrote in message
news:7p44va$7e6$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> :You are a sinner doing the bidding of satan! You will burn in hell
> for
Dirk Tebben
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
>Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
>evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
proof.
>Thus proving
>Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For all
>species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
>that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
>each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
>there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
>intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
>that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
>out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic detail
>can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
>supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of physical
>scientific theory.
What specific aspects of the physical universe prove the existence of
a creator, in your opinion? False dichotomies and arguments from
ignorance ("science can't explain this, so it must be God") do not
constitute proof or even reasonable argument.
--
"He'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet
copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards!'" - Terry Pratchett
"Ah, if in this world there were no cherry blossoms, perhaps in the
spring our hearts would be at peace." - Ariwara no Narihira
"Mother should I trust the government?" - Pink Floyd
Rev. Peter
Dore Williamson wrote:
the question was..
> :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> :> which can permit immense variation within a
> :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> :> evolution cannot occur.
Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means. Thus proving
Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For all
species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic detail
can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of physical
scientific theory.
John Baker
--
"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
~George Carlin
ICQ:14711681
God's Real Truth <g...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:37B59176...@onramp.net...
> " But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
> misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
> people, till there was no remedy."
> II Chron. 36:16
>
> " I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he
> answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
>
John Baker
many means. It hasn't been "proven" only in the sense that science doesn't
use that term. Time for you to join your fundy friends in my killfile.
<PLONK>
--
"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
~George Carlin
ICQ:14711681
Dore Williamson <spiri...@supernet.com> wrote in message
news:37b5...@news.desupernet.net...
> the question was..
> > :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> > :> which can permit immense variation within a
> > :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> > :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> > :> evolution cannot occur.
>
> Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
> evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means. Thus proving
> Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For all
> species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
> that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
> each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact
that
> there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
> intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other,
proves
> that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
> out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic
detail
> can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
> supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of
physical
> scientific theory.
> --
> http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
>
> Dore
> god's real truth <g...@pleasespankme.org> wrote in message
> news:7p44va$7e6$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> > God's Real Truth wrote in message <37B59176...@onramp.net>...
> > :your evil. God's Real Truth, Seeking very assertive and sophisticated
> > :Lady, who specializes in administering bare bottom spankings to bad
> > :boys, inventive in the art of discipline
> > :
> > :" But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
> > :misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
> > :people, till there was no remedy."
> > :II Chron. 36:16 God's Real Truth, Seeking very assertive and
> > :sophisticated Lady, who specializes in administering bare bottom
> > :spankings to bad boys, inventive in the art of discipline
> > :
> > :" I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he
> > :answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
> > :God's Real Truth, Seeking very assertive and sophisticated Lady,
> > :who specializes in administering bare bottom spankings to bad boys,
> > :inventive in the art of discipline
> > :
> > :" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
Don Kresch
that
>the question was..
>> :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>> :> which can permit immense variation within a
>> :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
>> :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
>> :> evolution cannot occur.
>
>Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
>evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
To put it another way, evolution has been observed in nature and thus it
is a proven fact.
> Thus proving Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being.
There's no link for that conclusion.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Will Jenkins
> > :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> > :> which can permit immense variation within a
> > :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> > :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> > :> evolution cannot occur.
>
> Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
> Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being.
Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore God
CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means. Thus proving - uh - that there
is no God, I guess.
-Will
William Henry Schmitt Jr.
--
In The Lord Jesus Christ of holy Scripture
"Wherefore should the heathen say: Where now is their God?
But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased."
I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this
question
if you can:
Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
which can permit immense variation within a
species, but stops that huge variation dead
at the species "boundary" such that macro
evolution cannot occur.
It is the same scientific mechanism that still exists now that permits
immense variation within a species, but stops that huge variation dead at
the species "boundary" such that macro evolution cannot occur... and which
has NOT been DIS-PROVEN by any of your "scientific evidence" any where in
any archeological dig or in any "find of some "missing links" either. Like
"Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax! Or "piltdown man" another clever
trick by scientific charlatons who expect everyone to swallow
macro-evolution just because they dig up some bones from all over the world
and construct a "missing link" from the bones found where ever they can get
them and constructed in just such a way that the unsuspecting won't find out
HOW they did their "Let's make a mosaic link man out of bones".
For all the scientists who put on their lying shows in support of the
"THEORY of evolution" :
" God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap."
If you can answer this question and demonstrate it scientifically, you
will have taken the first and only step creationism has ever made towards
supporting
its case. If you cannot, the simplest explanation must hold true - that
evolution can and does transform species, over time, into other species.
Answers may be emailed directly to me. These are to be scientifically
supported answers, not guesswork, supposition, opinion, or
proselytizing - I
have heard all of that before. I want to know what the answer is to
that
question. Deal with it, or back off from your pathetic claims for
creation and
quit bleating.
Budikka
Since when does God need to give you fools an explanation of "HOW" He does
confound you when you will NOT BELIEVE if he came down from heaven and told
you Himself???
Bill
"Wherefore should the heathen say: Where now is their God? But our God is in
the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased."
yang hu
> Like
> "Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
and who *showed* that?
--
Yang
a.a.#28
EAC mole and other furry creatures
rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
are true."
George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
Fish
<snip Dore Williamson idiocy>
>
> Dore
Read about Dore's hallucinations at:
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/1111.html
Read Stix's parody of the above idiot's delusions at:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~stix/idiots/thinks_its_jesus.html
--
!!!!!!!! SET YOUR FOLLOWUPS !!!!!!!!
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
Isaac Asimov & Robert Silverberg _Nightfall_
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
mel turner
wrote:
>the question was..
>> :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>> :> which can permit immense variation within a
>> :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
>> :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
>> :> evolution cannot occur.
>
>Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
>evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
Non sequitur. Evolution doesn't require or involve the miraculous. The
fact that evolution occurs and has occurred [changes in lineages and
common descent of organisms] is very well supported by the scientific
evidence. Science deals in evidence, not "proof".
> Thus proving
>Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being.
Non sequitur.
>For all
>species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and
such
>that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated
into
>each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation.
Unsupported assertion.
[snip babble] Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molecular-genetics.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-begi
nners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#science
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html
cheers
raven1
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
>the question was..
>> :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>> :> which can permit immense variation within a
>> :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
>> :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
>> :> evolution cannot occur.
>
>Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous,
There's nothing miraculous about evolution.
> so therefore
>evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
You mean like repeated observations in nature and the laboratory,
genetic comparisons, and the fossil record?
>Thus proving
>Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being.
I suppose the words "non sequitur" mean nothing to you.
> For all
>species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
>that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
>each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
>there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals,
"Minerals"!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? When did "minerals" become living
creatures?
>with such
>intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
>that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
>out of nothing, without a supreme Creator.
Again, non sequitur.
>God chooses which genetic detail
>can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
>supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of physical
>scientific theory.
You haven't the slightest idea of how to construct a simple argument,
have you?
<plonk>
Don Kresch
told us all that
>
>--
>In The Lord Jesus Christ of holy Scripture
>"Wherefore should the heathen say: Where now is their God?
>But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased."
> I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this
>question
>if you can:
>
> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>which can permit immense variation within a
> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> evolution cannot occur.
>
>It is the same scientific mechanism that still exists now that permits
>immense variation within a species, but stops that huge variation dead at
>the species "boundary" such that macro evolution cannot occur...
Non-answer.
>and which has NOT been DIS-PROVEN by any of your "scientific evidence" any where in
>any archeological dig or in any "find of some "missing links" either. Like
>"Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
Who showed it and when.
> Or "piltdown man" another clever trick by scientific charlatons who expect everyone to swallow
>macro-evolution just because they dig up some bones from all over the world
>and construct a "missing link" from the bones found where ever they can get
>them and constructed in just such a way that the unsuspecting won't find out
Only it was found out. That's science. If science didn't change, it would
be dogma. Like religion.
>HOW they did their "Let's make a mosaic link man out of bones".
>For all the scientists who put on their lying shows in support of the
>"THEORY of evolution" :
Don
John Baker
misrepresented the facts. (The much-publicized kneecap fiasco.) However, as
you'll recall, it was *Gish* who was exposed as a liar and a fraud. I just
can't get over how many fundies seem to think it's OK to lie for Jee-zus.
--
"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
~George Carlin
ICQ:14711681
yang hu <yangh@***uci***.edu.> wrote in message
news:7p4nmt$2...@news.service.uci.edu...
> William Henry Schmitt Jr. wrote:
>
>
> > Like
> > "Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
>
yang hu
> "Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
The DataRat
The fact that you did not even attempt an answer to Budikka's
question shows that you still have you head up your ass hole. It must be
very difficult to breath like that!
Reverend DataRat ULC ordained minister since 1967
Visit BIBLICAL ERRANCY: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld
The DataRat
Its true! Heaven is full of assholes. And they have wars and armies
there. And a Dragon!
Xians are going to be sadly disappointed when Matt. 24:35 plays its
cruel hand, (it says), "Heaven and earth shall pass away,..."
So where will all the xians go when heaven passes away?
The DataRat
The DataRat
danger of hell fire." But Jesus himself called others fools in Matt.
23:17 and 23:19 and Luke 11:40. From Jesus' own words we must conclude
that Jesus, too, along with the rest of mankind, is in danger of going
to hell.
John Baker
news:37b617d9...@news.sprint.ca...
> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 08:55:34 -0700, God's Real Truth <g...@onramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Budikka wrote:
> >>
> >> For many, many months I have been trying to get creationism's foremost
> >> spokeperson into a debate.
> >>
> >> I challenged Kent Hovind's offer for proof of evolution, which he
skilfully
> >> evaded dealing with. I emailed him 300 creationist lies based on his
_own_
> >> debate material. He refused to answer any of them.
> >>
> >> I reduced my challenge from 300 lies to only ten lies, and asked that
he answer
> >> only five of the ten. He retreated behind insults and refused to
answer.
> >>
> >> I finally reduced my challenge to one single question. I offered to
meet him
> >> anywhere, any time, for a debate on any topic, before any audience of
his
> >> choice under any conditions he cares to name if he could answer this
question.
> >> Again he retreated behind insults and refused to answer. Obviously
this
> >> charlatan cannot defend his material and is nothing but a fraud and a
liar.
> >>
question
> >> if you can:
> >>
> >> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> >> which can permit immense variation within a
> >> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> >> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> >> evolution cannot occur.
> >>I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this
question
> "if you can:
> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> which can permit immense variation within a
> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> evolution cannot occur."
>
> however
> In response to your challenge:
>
> Scripture indicates that after the creation of the earth, that all
> life on earth ceased between 10,390 BC and 4000 BC. The creation
> account in Genesis 1:3-31 is of the second creation.
> Therefore your question assumes a continuum of life on earth from the
> beginning, which is not the case, and that is why you can't get the
> answer you are seeking.
> Starting from the creation, the following chronology is produced from
> Scriptural references as follows:- God created the perfect heaven,
> Genesis 1:1
> - God created the perfect earth, Genesis 1:1, 2 Esdras 6:38
> - The earth was in a state of confusion as a result of war "without
> form" Genesis 1:2
> Jeremiah 4:23:26
> -The earth was empty as a result of God's wrath "void" of life.
> Genesis 1:2, Jeremiah 4:23:26
> - As a result of this war, all men on earth died. Jeremiah 4:25
> - God the Father, who is called the Ancient of Days, and the Word of
> God, who we now call Jesus, said "let us make man in our image, after
> our image" Genesis 1:26
> - The Scriptures do not indicate if "Jer 4:25 man" was created in that
> image. Genesis 1:27-28
> - God tells Adam to "replenish" the Earth, that is: to fill it up
> again. The same word he used in Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and
> his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
> the earth.
> - That all life on earth today is of the second creation account of
> Genesis 1.
> - Therefore, Adam was not the first man on earth, since before
> "without form and void" man was living in cities on earth. Nor does
> it say that Adam was the first man anywhere in the Bible.
>
> - That Solomon, known for his knowledge, spoke of that previous age of
> the earth. [below]
> Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall
> be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is
> no new thing under the sun.
> 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it
> hath been already of old time, which was before us.
> 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be
> any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come
> after.
>
> 2 Esdras 6:38 And I said O Lord, thou spakest from the beginning of
> the creation, even the first day, and saidst thus; Let heaven and
> earth be made; and thy word was a perfect work.
>
> You will also notice that in Genesis 1 that "and" is used 59 times.
> This sets up the chronology of the "second creation" events.
> It is through misunderstanding of the chronology that allows the
> errant theory of evolution to linger.
> Genesis 1:1-2 (English-KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven
> and the earth.
> 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
> face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
> waters.
> "without form" is from the Hebrew "tohu" and translates "in vain"
> this same word "tohu" used in Isaiah 45:18
> Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God
> himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he
> created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD;
> and there is none else.
> Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and
> void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
> 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the
> hills moved lightly.
> 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the
> heavens were fled.
> 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all
> the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and
> by his fierce anger.
>
> Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
> God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God
> blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
> replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of
> the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
> that moveth upon the earth.
>
>
>
>
> Evolutionists "in-toto" accept the Law of Gravity because they do not
> realize that evidence of law and "Law" is evidence of a "Law-Giver".
> The universe contains billions of stars in billions of galaxies, all
> of which are tracking a predictable path. This is evidence that
> innumerable stars are obeying ONE command: across a universe where
> distances are measured in light years. At the speed of 186,000 miles
> per second, it's a pretty big place. Perhaps that's why HE is called
> ALMIGHTY GOD.
>
> Examine a leaf of a tree in summer, you will see also a pattern in the
> leaf. Size, pattern, shape, colour, etc, what is this but evidence of
> "Law". When that leaf or flower falls to the ground in autumn, it
> decomposes, going from "order" to "disorder".
>
> Evolutions say the opposite, they say "out of disorder to order".
>
> They're only turned 180 degrees from the facts. And the facts that
> are the truth:
>
> GOD created the heaven and the earth.
>
> The problem with Evolution theory is that it raises more questions
> that it answers, and that is CONFUSION.
>
> Enjoy
>
> Bill Erickson
>
> >> If you can answer this question and demonstrate it scientifically, you
will
> >> have taken the first and only step creationism has ever made towards
supporting
> >> its case. If you cannot, the simplest explanation must hold true -
that
> >> evolution can and does transform species, over time, into other
species.
> >>
> >> Answers may be emailed directly to me. These are to be scientifically
> >> supported answers, not guesswork, supposition, opinion, or
proselytizing - I
> >> have heard all of that before. I want to know what the answer is to
that
> >> question. Deal with it, or back off from your pathetic claims for
creation and
> >> quit bleating.
> >>
> >> Budikka
> >
> >your evil.
> >
> >misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
> >people, till there was no remedy."
> >II Chron. 36:16
> >
> >answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
> >
> >shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
> >
> >God's Real Truth
>
<PLONK!>
biller...@sprint.ca
Michelle Malkin
<g...@onramp.net> wrote:
>Budikka wrote:
>>
>> For many, many months I have been trying to get creationism's foremost
>> spokeperson into a debate.
>>
>> I challenged Kent Hovind's offer for proof of evolution, which he skilfully
>> evaded dealing with. I emailed him 300 creationist lies based on his _own_
>> debate material. He refused to answer any of them.
>>
>> I reduced my challenge from 300 lies to only ten lies, and asked that he answer
>> only five of the ten. He retreated behind insults and refused to answer.
>>
>> I finally reduced my challenge to one single question. I offered to meet him
>> anywhere, any time, for a debate on any topic, before any audience of his
>> choice under any conditions he cares to name if he could answer this question.
>> Again he retreated behind insults and refused to answer. Obviously this
>> charlatan cannot defend his material and is nothing but a fraud and a liar.
>>
>> I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this question
>> if you can:
>>
>> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>> which can permit immense variation within a
>> species, but stops that huge variation dead
>> at the species "boundary" such that macro
>> evolution cannot occur.
>>
>> If you can answer this question and demonstrate it scientifically, you will
>> have taken the first and only step creationism has ever made towards supporting
>> its case. If you cannot, the simplest explanation must hold true - that
>> evolution can and does transform species, over time, into other species.
>>
>> Answers may be emailed directly to me. These are to be scientifically
>> supported answers, not guesswork, supposition, opinion, or proselytizing - I
>> have heard all of that before. I want to know what the answer is to that
>> question. Deal with it, or back off from your pathetic claims for creation and
>> quit bleating.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>You are a sinner doing the bidding of satan! You will burn in hell for
>your evil.
>
>" But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and
>misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his
>people, till there was no remedy."
>II Chron. 36:16
>
>" I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he
>answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn." Job 12:4
>
>" Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
>that
>shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
>
>God's Real Truth
PLONK!
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
mel turner
zax...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> I now throw out a challenge to any creationist anywhere. Answer this
>question
>if you can:
>
> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>which can permit immense variation within a
> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> evolution cannot occur.
>
>It is the same scientific mechanism that still exists now that permits
>immense variation within a species, but stops that huge variation dead
at
>the species "boundary" such that macro evolution cannot occur...
No scientific mechanism at all, in other words.
> and which
>has NOT been DIS-PROVEN by any of your "scientific evidence" any where
in
>any archeological dig
You mean "paleontological", perhaps? Yes, the scientific evidence shows
there is no such "mechanism", since it shows that speciation occurs.
>or in any "find of some "missing links" either. Like
>"Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
Sorry, that's just another creationist falsehood you've swallowed,
there's nothing "hoaxed' about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
>Or "piltdown man" another clever
>trick by scientific charlatons who expect everyone to swallow
>macro-evolution just because they dig up some bones from all over the
world
>and construct a "missing link" from the bones found where ever they can
get
>them and constructed in just such a way that the unsuspecting won't
find out
The Piltdown hoax is indeed an interesting mystery.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html> We don't know for sure
who did it or why. The fraud was discovered and revealed by
"evolutionist" scientists, not creationists, and that was partly because
it didn't fit in with all the genuine hominid fossils that have been
found. It doesn't indicate that the rest of the fossil record is full of
frauds. [If one hoax destroys the credibility of an entire field of
study, "scientific" creationism is sunk many times over (which it is, I
suppose...<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html>)]
>HOW they did their "Let's make a mosaic link man out of bones".
>For all the scientists who put on their lying shows in support of the
>"THEORY of evolution" :
Nice little slur there against a whole lot of people you've never met.
Perhaps you should sometimes consider the possibility that it's
professional "scientific" creationism that's full of falsehoods:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
Landis D. Ragon
>On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:04:37 -0400, "Dore Williamson"
><spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
>
>>Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
>>evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
>
>Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
>proof.
>
Dirk, you're arguing with Dore "I am too Christ!" Williamson. Any
attempt at logic and reason will be ignored or insulted.
>>Thus proving
>>Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For all
>>species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and such
>>that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
>>each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
>>there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
>>intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
>>that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
>>out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic detail
>>can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
>>supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of physical
>>scientific theory.
>
>What specific aspects of the physical universe prove the existence of
>a creator, in your opinion? False dichotomies and arguments from
>ignorance ("science can't explain this, so it must be God") do not
>constitute proof or even reasonable argument.
--
Landis D. Ragon
Chief - EAC Database Operations
Homo sapiens is, in it's purest essence, a 35 foot
long intestine with a talent for self-flattery.
Javacrucian
yang hu wrote:
>
> William Henry Schmitt Jr. wrote:
>
> > "Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Isn't it amazing, WHS jr., what can be learned when you do a little
reading outside of the cult approved literature you are mentally
addicted to? Gee, so many FACTS out there. . . but we wouldn't want to
muddle our tidy circle of reasoning, would we? Of course, you will not
answer this anymore than you have responded to any of my other
challenges to you, which is not at all. Coward.
Javacrucian
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand; ignorance and
prejudice and fear walk hand in hand" -- RUSH
DougG A#344
<nom...@dontbugme.net> wrote:
>"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
>you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
>
> ~George Carlin
And lets not go nailing lifts onto the natives feet.
Also George Carlin
observ...@yahoo.com Atheist#344
MrsRat
webTV who is using The DataRat's nickname in an
attempt to ruin his good name in the Christian NG's.
You are NOT my husband. You are NOT The DataRat.
Go find your own nickname to use and quit trying to
pretend you are someone else.
Everyone....CHECK the address of any of The
DataRat's posts. The REAL DataRat's address is
dat...@home.com.
Anyone who is as upset as I am over this can forward
a copy of all posts this imposture does to his ISP at
ab...@webtv.net with full headers turned on and a
complaint for them to have him change his posting
name or to deny him access to usenet.
--
MrsRat
Admin XWorld NetWork
http://www.xworld.org
http://sefl.satelnet.org/~brats/
Christopher A. Lee
John Baker <nom...@dontbugme.net> wrote:
>He's probably referring to Duane Gish's pathetic claims that scientists had
>misrepresented the facts. (The much-publicized kneecap fiasco.) However, as
>you'll recall, it was *Gish* who was exposed as a liar and a fraud. I just
>can't get over how many fundies seem to think it's OK to lie for Jee-zus.
There'a a long and dishonourable tradition of it - Aquinas
thought the small sin of a lie was Ok if it saved somebody's
soul. So did Calvin and Luther.
It's funny how these guys with an absolute god-given morality
suddenly develop situational ethics - if you can call it ethics.
John Baker
news:37be8857...@news.wauknet.com...
> Which album/book of his is this from? :)
It's from one of his HBO specials from the late '70's or early '80's. It may
be on an album or in a book, but I couldn't say for sure.
--
"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
~George Carlin
ICQ:14711681
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:03:07 GMT, observ...@yahoo.com (DougG A#344)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:40:25 -0400, "John Baker"
> ><nom...@dontbugme.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes
> >>you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes."
> >>
> >> ~George
Carlin
> >
> > And lets not go nailing lifts onto the natives feet.
> >
> > Also George Carlin
> >observ...@yahoo.com Atheist#344
>
>
> -Paul
> Chucky's Toybox- The 1st unofficial Child's Play homepage- with
multimedia, news, and a forum: http://www.wauknet.com/pauls
>
> "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then
there'd be peace." -John Lennon
Aaron I. Spielman
<snip bleating>
<plonk>
--
Aaron I. Spielman | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young - because they
aa...@rockethouse.net | Cussard #.357 | see it's no use living if you've
www.rockethouse.net | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."
Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC | ---John Barrymore
Aaron I. Spielman
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
> the question was..
> > :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> > :> which can permit immense variation within a
> > :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> > :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> > :> evolution cannot occur.
>
> Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous,
Hold it _right_ there, bleat-box.
Science isn't in the interest of proveing the miraculous. Your evasion
only showns that you, at least, have no fucking concept of what Buddika
was asking for.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>William Henry Schmitt Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> Like
>> "Lucy" which has been shown to be a hoax!
>
>and who *showed* that?
>
Well, golly gee, it must be a hoax. It doesn't agree with
fundamentalist doctrines. It would be similar to that cave in Alabama
that has evidence of 6000 years of uninterrupted occupancy by human
beings - they propably had very good scuba equipment to get them
through the flood.
>
>--
>Yang
>a.a.#28
>EAC mole and other furry creatures
>rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
>
>"I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as
>taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to
>distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct
>--that there is a greater mystery out there. I remember when I was
>10 years old, I asked my mother, "If there's only one God, why are
>there so many religions?" I've been pondering that question ever
>since, and the conclusion I've come to is that all the religions
>are true."
>
> George Lucas, Time Magazine, 4/17/1999
Thomas P.
Libertarius
===>The Bible claims the flood was only 15 cubits high, or about 25 feet.
Maybe
the flood didn't get to that cave?
Paul Duca
her Cuban bandleader husband and the old couple and the baby boy?
Paul
E.F. Mutton
<zax...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since when does God need to give you fools an explanation of "HOW" He does
>confound you when you will NOT BELIEVE if he came down from heaven and told
>you Himself???
Actually Mr. Schmitt if God came down from heaven THEN I would believe
in him. My question for you; is there ANYTHING which would make you
doubt his existance?
Craig
wrote:
>> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
>> which can permit immense variation within a
>> species, but stops that huge variation dead
>> at the species "boundary" such that macro
>> evolution cannot occur.
>>
>> If you can answer this question and demonstrate it scientifically, you will
>> have taken the first and only step creationism has ever made towards supporting
>> its case.
When the evolutionist is EVER able to produce an intermediary species
linking their claim of reptile to human, they will move beyond myth.
When ever the evolutionist is ever able to reproduce in the lab
spontaneous association of only levo-proteins from a racemic mixture,
than they will be able to have a major step in their advancement of
the myth that man evolved from a pool of organic and inorganic matter.
When ever the evolutionist is ever able to reproduce the environment
that allowed the spontaneous formation of simple matter to complex
matter, than they will be one step closer to proving their myth.
In the mean time, it's just a story and an unscientific one at that
because
1) It's unreproducible
2) it's unverifiable.
You lack the fossil record to support your fantastic claims as well as
the aforementioned *problems*.
Come back when you've solved these little dilemmas and well talk.
Shalom
Craig
Dore Williamson
> Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
> proof.
Actually, guessing and misinformation does not constitute proof no matter
how many imaginative scientists, without consideration of God, can come up
with. Observation of what? One scientist claims that the earth is a trillion
years old and no one can refute his imagination with any proof, so all
agree. Does that denote truth? You can repeat false scientific studies of
inadequate data for a thousand years and never will truth appear.
you wrote..
> What specific aspects of the physical universe prove the existence of
> a creator, in your opinion? False dichotomies and arguments from
> ignorance ("science can't explain this, so it must be God") do not
> constitute proof or even reasonable argument.
The fact that all things created are complex and work together in perfect
harmony cannot possibly occur out of nothing and exist on their own. Can man
create life out of nothing? Can he create and design all humans, plants
animals, minerals with all the resources of the earth, that hasn't been
created before? I ask, can man create a single seed out of all the resources
and minerals of the earth and make it grow into a 100 foot tree?
Consider this, can man create a planet in perfect distance from a sun, that
permeates life in all aspects and complexity, that is know on this planet.
If the earth would move one mile closer to the sun, wouldn't it burn, and if
it should move one mile away from the sun, wouldn't it freeze? And yet, all
life is sustained and in all it's complexity, as each animal, plant, mineral
is made up of a perfect organized substance with it's intricate detail, to
make it what it is, to provide all that is necessary to sustain life.
Thinking that the earth, and all it's complex creation, that works together
to provide for all without a Creator, is like taking all that makes up a
computer, tin, lead, plastic, silicon, copper, glass, rubber, ceramic etc.
and throw it in the sea, and after awhile a complete functioning,
self-healing, powered computer would wash up on the beach, would occur all
by itself is totally absurd and impossible. And yet you think that is
possible with man, plant and animal. Do you really think that all life, can
happen all by itself without divine design?
You, who obviously think that you are the most intelligent being, for you
refute God, can you create anything, wood, metal, vegetable, plant, animal,
man with life, out of nothing, and yet you think it occurred all by itself.
Life and all that is, is certain proof that God exists, for nothing cannot
create anything out of nothing.
If you believe in the big bang theory, what nothing banged together to
create something? Go ahead, prove that gravity can hold the planets together
in perfect order to the sun, if it was not done by a supreme being, create
gravity and cause planets to revolve around a sun, since you are more
knowledgeable, and have no Creator to do it for you.
Go ahead, create a Universe. Then you will have proof that there is no God,
and you will have a reasonable argument.
--
http://members.tripod.com/~spirit_of_prophecy/index.html
Dore
Dirk Tebben <maca...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:37b5bef6....@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:04:37 -0400, "Dore Williamson"
> <spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
>
> >Science cannot and has no explanation for the miraculous, so therefore
> >evolution CANNOT be scientifically proven by any means.
>
> Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
> proof.
>
> >Thus proving
> >Creation by a Supreme miraculous supernatural and spiritual being. For
all
> >species were miraculously created with their own specific systems and
such
> >that certain systems and complex genetic detail can be incorporated into
> >each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact
that
> >there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
> >intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other,
proves
> >that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by
itself
> >out of nothing, without a supreme Creator. God chooses which genetic
detail
> >can interact and which cannot, and therefore proves that it must be a
> >supreme Creator making the rules and not just some circumstance of
physical
> >scientific theory.
>
> What specific aspects of the physical universe prove the existence of
> a creator, in your opinion? False dichotomies and arguments from
> ignorance ("science can't explain this, so it must be God") do not
> constitute proof or even reasonable argument.
>
> --
> "He'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet
> copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards!'" - Terry Pratchett
>
> "Ah, if in this world there were no cherry blossoms, perhaps in the
> spring our hearts would be at peace." - Ariwara no Narihira
>
> "Mother should I trust the government?" - Pink Floyd
Fish
> you wrote..
> > Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
> > proof.
>
> Actually, guessing and misinformation does not constitute proof no matter
> how many imaginative scientists, without consideration of God, can come up
> with. Observation of what? One scientist claims that the earth is a trillion
> years old and no one can refute his imagination with any proof, so all
> agree. Does that denote truth? You can repeat false scientific studies of
> inadequate data for a thousand years and never will truth appear.
Actually, guessing and misinformation does not constitute proof no
matter how many imaginative creationists, without consideration of
Zerblax, can come up with. Observation of what? One creationist claims
that the earth is a zillion mega-trillion years old and no one can
refute his imagination with any proof, so all agree. Does that denote
truth? You can repeat false creationist studies of inadequate data for a
thousand years and never will truth appear.
<snip>
You, who obviously think that you are the most intelligent being, for
you refute Zerblax, can you create anything, wood, metal, vegetable,
plant, animal, man with life, out of nothing, and yet you think it
occurred all by itself.
Life and all that is, is certain proof that Zerblax exists, for nothing
cannot create anything out of nothing.
If you believe in the big bang theory, what nothing banged together to
create something? Go ahead, prove that gravity can hold the planets
together in perfect order to the sun, if it was not done by Zerblax the
Magnificent, create gravity and cause planets to revolve around a sun,
since you are more knowledgeable, and have no Zerblax to do it for you.
Go ahead, create a universe. Then you will have proof that there is no
Zerblax, and you will have a reasonable argument.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~stix/idiots/thinks_its_jesus.html
(followups appropriately redirected)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Jesus was a whining Jewish bastard
and an unproductive hallucinating hippy
who whined like a pussy while pinned to
a stick. His mother was a two-bit, Roman-
soldier-fucking whore, and the Holy Spirit
is a lying deceitful servant of Satan.
The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a fictitious
crock of shit." -- Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
PM Darryl Divil a'wan Pierce
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
<snip>
;each other is part of the beautiful plan of physical creation. The fact that
;there are so many species of plant, insect, animal, minerals, with such
;intricate detail of all, and all could not survive without the other, proves
;that it certainly couldn't have existed, nor come into being all by itself
;out of nothing, without a supreme Creator.
<snip>
Wrong. For starters, nobody said that the diversity we have now occured
overnight or even quickly. It took a few billion of years the most viable
combinations surviving and replicating to bring us to where we are today.
You pleading ignorance doesn't change that.
Is mise le meas,
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, father to Caleb (age 3) and Benjamin (age 10 months) |
| Visit me @ http://welcome.to/mcpiarais && http://welcome.to/gaeilge |
| "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Unsolicited email to this address is acceptance of a $500 per day |
| storage fee to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the email. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
PM Darryl Divil a'wan Pierce
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
;The fact that all things created are complex and work together in perfect
;harmony cannot possibly occur out of nothing and exist on their own.
Perfect harmony? Ever heard of the Black Death? How about typhoid?
Perhaps malaria? Harmony indeed...
Evan Thompson
<spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
From a brief skimming of your post, it looks like it's going to give my
drivel parser a real workout. Let's take this one sentence at a time.
This first one is not quite a sentence, but I'll give it the benefit of
the doubt...
> The fact that all things created are complex and work together in perfect
> harmony
Is not a fact.
I recently created a 5-line C++ program which quits with an error. It is
not complex- it's just supposed to open a window and say "hello world"-
and it does not work in harmony with anything. (I must have forgotten a
semicolon.)
> cannot possibly occur out of nothing and exist on their own.
Ah, maybe you're assuming your conclusion already- that EVERYTHING you see
is part of "creation". God's creation. Well, first demonstrate God, then
demonstrate he had a part in it, and then you can talk about the natural
world as "all things created."
> Can man
> create life out of nothing?
No. But what's your definiton of "nothing"? You must think that the theory
of evolution claims live was "created out of nouthing". Right? Well, that
is because you are ignorant.
> Can he create and design all humans, plants
> animals, minerals with all the resources of the earth, that hasn't been
> created before?
What? You're losing me. How many potential life-forms fit in the set of
"all humans, plants, and animals that haven't been created before?" An
infinite number? And what could our creating them- or being unable to do
so, possibly prove to you?
> I ask, can man create a single seed out of all the resources
> and minerals of the earth and make it grow into a 100 foot tree?
Yes. So can woman, by the way. Fabrication of a seed from its component
elements violates no laws of physics, and should be within the means of
human engineering in 50 years. Maybe more, maybe less. But you asked
"can", not "will", so the answer is a solid yes.
> Consider this, can man create a planet in perfect distance from a sun, that
> permeates life in all aspects and complexity, that is know on this planet.
Well, I haven't created any planets recently. Have you? Why bother-
planets create themselves, just take a dust cloud and apply some gravity.
They are plentiful enough that it would be far cheaper to find a
pre-existing one and terraform it.
> If the earth would move one mile closer to the sun, wouldn't it burn, and if
> it should move one mile away from the sun, wouldn't it freeze?
From this question, I guess you are unaware of the fact that the sun is
about 4.5 million miles closer to the sun in the winter than in the
summer.
(Oh, and the answer is "no.")
And yet, all
> life is sustained and in all it's
It's spelled "its", damn it.
> complexity, as each animal, plant, mineral is made up of a perfect organized
> substance with it's intricate detail, to make it what it is, to provide all
> that is necessary to sustain life.
But what is your definition of a "perfect organized substance", anyway? A
synthetic diamond?
And what's with the mineral stuff? You're the first person I've seen to
bring in *rocks* as an example of irreducible complexity.
> Thinking that the earth, and all it's complex creation, that works together
> to provide for all without a Creator,
Uh oh, here we go...
> is like taking all that makes up a
> computer, tin, lead, plastic, silicon, copper, glass, rubber, ceramic etc.
> and throw it in the sea, and after awhile a complete functioning,
> self-healing, powered computer would wash up on the beach, would occur all
> by itself is totally absurd and impossible.
I personally like the tornado going through the junkyard and forming a
747: a catchier mental image. But, alas, an ignorant strawman argument is
an ignorant strawman argument. Evolutionary theory does *not* predict the
spontaneous self-organization of computer parts thrown into the ocean. It
predicts such behavior under other circumstances.
> And yet you think that is
> possible with man, plant and animal. Do you really think that all life, can
> happen all by itself without divine design?
Yes. Life might well be defined as "That which happens all by itself". On
a basic level, that's what makes it alive. You haven't yet shown that it
can happen with divine design.
> You, who obviously think that you are the most intelligent being,
I never said that- no one did. But, relative to people like you, well...
> for you refute God,
I can't refute God, as God has not yet put forth a claim.
> can you create anything, wood, metal, vegetable, plant, animal,
> man with life, out of nothing, and yet you think it occurred all by itself.
What is this? You seem to think that if we don't believe God created
stuff, we have to be able to create it ourselves? Where is the logic in
that?
Biological evolution (stuff happening all by itself, as you call it) can
do things designers can't do, or can't do as well. That's why computer
programmers and processor designers have been looking so closely at it
lately.
> Life and all that is, is certain proof that God exists, for nothing cannot
> create anything out of nothing.
I suppose God just pulled Himself out from His (not-yet-existing) ass, then?
Seriously, if you're going to start chanting the "nothing can come from
nothing" mantra, then where DO you think God came from? From nothing. And
if God can do it, then it is not impossible; therefore the universe could
have came from nothing just as easily, and your argument falls apart.
> If you believe in the big bang theory, what nothing banged together to
> create something?
It sounds like your understanding of what the Big Bang is/was is
comparable to that of a trained chimpanzee, presented with symbols for the
words "bang" and "big" on a special keyboard, and putting the two together
to form a new concept.
As such, I won't bother getting into the gory quantum mechanical details.
> Go ahead, prove that gravity can hold the planets together
> in perfect order to the sun, if it was not done by a supreme being,
Oh, so I see you don't believe in any of that new-fangled "gravitation"
hogwash the neo-newtonians are trying to force down our kids throats in
public schools. Gods angels must be pushing the planets around. After all,
if gravity was true, we'd all just fall into the sun, right?
> create
> gravity and cause planets to revolve around a sun, since you are more
> knowledgeable, and have no Creator to do it for you.
We can create quite nice computer simulations of it, what more do you
want? Most of the ignorant Bible-worshiperers here only want "proof". You
want a whole solar system.?
> Go ahead, create a Universe.
> Then you will have proof that there is no God,
> and you will have a reasonable argument.
No, we will have just proved ourselves to be 'gods'. And in so doing,
forever devalued the concept of a deity- but also opening up the
possiblity that our own universe was created. By the mythological
patriarch from your Bible? Nope.
More likely, by scientists.
Elroy Willis
>If you believe in the big bang theory, what nothing banged together to
>create something? Go ahead, prove that gravity can hold the planets together
>in perfect order to the sun, if it was not done by a supreme being, create
>gravity and cause planets to revolve around a sun, since you are more
>knowledgeable, and have no Creator to do it for you.
Please give us some reasons why comets and meteors collide with
planets and their moons, and why galaxies are colliding with each
other. Do you see this as an orderly plan, devised by your god?
Do you see the mass extinction of 90% of animals on earth as
a brilliant plan by some omniscient god?
--
Elroy Willis
BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news
Jessica M. Wolfman
wrote:
>you wrote..
>> Apparently, repeated and peer-reviewed observation does not count as
>> proof.
>
>Actually, guessing and misinformation does not constitute proof no matter
>how many imaginative scientists, without consideration of God, can come up
>with. Observation of what? One scientist claims that the earth is a trillion
>years old and no one can refute his imagination with any proof, so all
>agree. Does that denote truth? You can repeat false scientific studies of
>inadequate data for a thousand years and never will truth appear.
The earth isn't a trillion years olf. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old or
so. There really isn't any evidence to the contrary.
>you wrote..
>> What specific aspects of the physical universe prove the existence of
>> a creator, in your opinion? False dichotomies and arguments from
>> ignorance ("science can't explain this, so it must be God") do not
>> constitute proof or even reasonable argument.
>
>The fact that all things created are complex and work together in perfect
>harmony cannot possibly occur out of nothing and exist on their own. Can man
>create life out of nothing? Can he create and design all humans, plants
>animals, minerals with all the resources of the earth, that hasn't been
>created before? I ask, can man create a single seed out of all the resources
>and minerals of the earth and make it grow into a 100 foot tree?
Now? No. In the future? Possibly.
>Consider this, can man create a planet in perfect distance from a sun, that
>permeates life in all aspects and complexity, that is know on this planet.
>If the earth would move one mile closer to the sun, wouldn't it burn, and if
>it should move one mile away from the sun, wouldn't it freeze?
The earth moves many thousands of miles towards and away from the sun. The orbit
is not a perfect circle. In addition, the earth itself is eliptical. These two
things combine to give us seasons. The earth would have to be many millions of
miles closer to the sun to burn, and many millions of miles further away to
freeze. Temperature is not a *huge* thing when it comes to life, considering the
creatures that can live in ice, and in boiling vents on the ocean floor, where
the pressure is crushing.
>And yet, all
>life is sustained and in all it's complexity, as each animal, plant, mineral
>is made up of a perfect organized substance with it's intricate detail, to
>make it what it is, to provide all that is necessary to sustain life.
Except for the ones that aren't perfect, and die out because of it. Like the
dinosaurs, who couldn't adapt.
>Thinking that the earth, and all it's complex creation, that works together
>to provide for all without a Creator, is like taking all that makes up a
>computer, tin, lead, plastic, silicon, copper, glass, rubber, ceramic etc.
>and throw it in the sea, and after awhile a complete functioning,
>self-healing, powered computer would wash up on the beach, would occur all
>by itself is totally absurd and impossible.
Yes, it is. Fortunately, that's not how evolution works.
>And yet you think that is
>possible with man, plant and animal. Do you really think that all life, can
>happen all by itself without divine design?
Yup.
>You, who obviously think that you are the most intelligent being, for you
>refute God, can you create anything, wood, metal, vegetable, plant, animal,
>man with life, out of nothing, and yet you think it occurred all by itself.
>
>Life and all that is, is certain proof that God exists, for nothing cannot
>create anything out of nothing.
Unfortunately, that isn't proof of anything except that you don't know how
evolution works.
>If you believe in the big bang theory, what nothing banged together to
>create something?
Nothing banged together. The theory is talking about an explosion, and from what
I've read, a surprising small amount of matter would be required to make the
explosion (the "bang" is a sound effect). Where did the matter come from? I
don't know. My astronomy professor said that the person who came up with the
theory was a Jesuit priest, although he could be wrong.
>Go ahead, prove that gravity can hold the planets together
>in perfect order to the sun,
What's perfect about it? Have you ever seen the orbit of Pluto?
>if it was not done by a supreme being, create
>gravity and cause planets to revolve around a sun, since you are more
>knowledgeable, and have no Creator to do it for you.
I'm not massive enough to become a solar system. Human beings aren't. Time and
natural laws can do that, though.
>Go ahead, create a Universe. Then you will have proof that there is no God,
>and you will have a reasonable argument.
First of all, "creating a universe" wouldn't prove that there wasn't a god. It
is your responsibility, though, to prove that there is on. Saying "there has to
be a god, because otherwise how would everything be here?" isn't proof.
Jessica Wolfman
sa #1002
"No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions."
-- Charles P. Steinmetz
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
PM Darryl L. Pierce
evanPOTTEDMEATFO...@earthlink.net (Evan Thompson) wrote:
<snip>
;> If the earth would move one mile closer to the sun, wouldn't it burn, and if
;> it should move one mile away from the sun, wouldn't it freeze?
;
;From this question, I guess you are unaware of the fact that the sun is
;about 4.5 million miles closer to the sun in the winter than in the
;summer.
;(Oh, and the answer is "no.")
<snip>
Don't forget to tell her something else that will problem burst one of
her two remaining brain cells; when the Earth is closest to the Sun, it's
winter in the northern hemisphere, and when it's farthest away, it's
summer. IOW, distance from the Sun isn't the issue with climate on Earth,
instead it's the angle and daily duration of sunlight striking the area
that controls the climate.
Shane D. Killian
"Dore Williamson" <spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
> the question was..
> > :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> > :> which can permit immense variation within a
> > :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> > :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> > :> evolution cannot occur.
>
> blah, yadda yadda yadda.
>
I've been asking this question of Creationists for years, and have yet
to receive an answer. Why is this so difficult? If you disbelieve
macroevolution, then there must be some mechanism preventing it.
*Something* that prevents small-scale changes froma ccumulating into
large ones. Inches from becoming feet. Feet from becoming yards. Yards
from becoming miles.
This is a very fair question about the cornerstone of creationism. So
stop shirking and answer the question!!!
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Eric Christy
Perhaps the best way to describe why microevolution cannot lead to
macroevolution is via the cell's ability to defeat attempts at mutation. We
know that mutations are very destructive. Mutations which are passed along
from parent to offspring almost always harm the offspring, or, do not bring
about speciation. An example would be the studies done with fruit flys. We
have studied thousands of generations and have noticed mutations occuring,
most of which are destructive. Those that are not still don't bring about
speciation. They fruit flys are still...fruit flys even after thousands and
thousands of generations. What this indicates is the mechanism for fixivity
within all cells is so strong that even when mutations -are- passed along
safely to offspring, the offspring cannot utilize this new information to
bring about speciation.
Because of this tendency for the genetic code to code FIXIVITY of species,
even mutations cannot bring about speciation.
Eric.
Elroy Willis
>Evan Thompson wrote:
>> > Go ahead, create a Universe.
>> > Then you will have proof that there is no God,
>> > and you will have a reasonable argument.
>> No, we will have just proved ourselves to be 'gods'. And in so doing,
>> forever devalued the concept of a deity- but also opening up the
>> possiblity that our own universe was created. By the mythological
>> patriarch from your Bible? Nope.
>> More likely, by scientists.
>And there in your statement, is the reason why most evolutionists
>believe in it. Not in the interests of 'scientific truth', nor due to any
>intellecutal superiority over those who don't. You believe in evolution
>because you want to be 'god.'
Wake up guy. We believe in evolution because it's a fact. It has
nothing to do with some belief in god. You can believe in your
creation story, or you can change it to include evolution if you're
the least bit honest about recognizing the natural world around you.
Stories of some god magicking up mankind from a ball of clay are
for kindergarten children, not intelligent educated adults.
>To believe in a creator would mean that you would now be accountable
>to Him for the lifestyle you choose to live,
A belief in a creator says nothing of the sort. You can believe in a
creator who gave up his own life to create the universe, or even one
that created everything, and is just sitting back in his Lazy-boy
chair watching the universe unfold, just like you watch the
nightly news.
Positing a creator does not necessarily mean that this creator is
personally involved with its creations.
>a lifestyle the creator might not approve of.
I'm afraid you've mistaken the lifestyle that some creator of the
universe would approve of with the lifestyle that the people who
claim to have spoken to this creator have chosen to interpret
into their own little version of what they think is approvable.
In other words, you refuse to think for yourself, and simply take
for granted the words of ancient people as true, without any sort of
verification process involved.
>So rather than investigate for yourself whether a creator exists
>or not,
Nobody can prove a creator exists. They can make up all the stories
they want, but they simply cannot prove that these stories are true.
>most evolutionists are content to reject anything that suggests one.
Many evolutionists believe that god started the ball rolling and has
stepped back, and allowed his wonderful creation to unfold into the
world we see around us today.
You can believe that some god made man out of a ball of clay,
in his current form, or you can believe that he was smart enough to
devise evolution, and the ability of living things to adapt to
changing environments, creating new species along the way, and
populating our planet with all of the diverse forms of life we see
around us today.
The creation story in the bible is actually an insult to any
intelligent version of some god belief.
>This way, they can continue to bask in their self-indulgent,
>humanistic conceit.
And you can continue to bask in the darkness of ignorance
and superstitious beliefs. That's up to you.
>That is why, when presented with polite and logical questions
>regarding evolution, most evolutionists respond with rudeness
>and condescending responses (though to be fair, the behavior
>and reasonings of many 'creationists' has left much to be
>desired as well).
Creationists who hold literally to the Genesis story are only hiding
from reality. They aren't fooling anyone but themselves.
>Evolution is nothing more that the religion of self-worship.
Why do you say that?
--
Bring me food and beer and I'll talk to God for you.
I like strawberry incense just like God does,
so bring some of that too. It'll make God happy.
smozoma
>> > Then you will have proof that there is no God,
>> > and you will have a reasonable argument.
>>
>> No, we will have just proved ourselves to be 'gods'. And in so doing,
>> forever devalued the concept of a deity- but also opening up the
>> possiblity that our own universe was created. By the mythological
>> patriarch from your Bible? Nope.
>> More likely, by scientists.
>
>Not in the interests of 'scientific truth', nor due to any intellecutal
>superiority over those who don't. You believe in evolution because you want to be
>'god.'
Umm... no. You are jumping to conclusions. I have no interest in being 'god.'
People believe in evolution because it makes sense and we have really good evidence of it having
happened and happening, for example,
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html:
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
"In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long
Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals.
Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over
20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the
Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found.
Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH)
for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at
whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of
successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the
field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the
field populations."
Also, making life out of nothing is not evolution, it is abiogenesis.
I would suggest reading this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
It's short, but I found it informative. It's about the 5 most common misconceptions about
evolution.
And creating a universe wouldn't make us gods. It would make us _god-like_.
If we went back in time to an older civilization with all our tech, they would think we were gods.
But we wouldn't be. We consider making universes god-like, but if we ever figure out how to do it,
it will no longer be considered god-like to the society that does it. It would be god-like to us,
the present human species, however.
>To believe in a creator would mean that you would now be accountable to Him for
>the lifestyle you choose to live, a lifestyle the creator might not approve of.
>So rather than investigate for yourself whether a creator exists or not, most
>evolutionists are content to reject anything that suggests one.
What are some things that suggest one? I suspect most reject them as signs of a god because they
can be explained without invoking a "goddidit."
There are many creationist evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists) who believe a god made the
universe, and even kick-started life and guided evolution. I'm not sure, but I think they outnumber
static creationists in most advanced countries.
I am not accountable to a god. I am accountable to people. Many of my actions affect them. And I
am accountable to myself, as all my actions affect me.
>This way, they
>can continue to bask in their self-indulgent, humanistic conceit. That is why,
>when presented with polite and logical questions regarding evolution, most
>evolutionists respond with rudeness and condescending responses (though to be
>fair, the behavior and reasonings of many 'creationists' has left much to be
>desired as well).
I think the reason they're condescending is because they find it inconcieveable that people don't
accept at least the possibility that evolution happens. The rudeness comes from irritation at yet
another person rejecting evolution without understanding it and not knowing the current evidence
such as transition fossils and observed speciation.
>Evolution is nothing more that the religion of self-worship.
What?! That is what most religions are. In Christianty, we are told that we are created in the
image of God. We're super special. Everything revolves around us. The universe was created so we
could exist. Religion makes us feel special (It also helps to explain all those things that haven't
been able to figure out yet).
Evolution makes us realize that we're just an eventual product of natural selection. We're not all
that special. There could be other beings out there that are more advanced than us. They might
have even accomplished way more than we have and in a shorter time period. However, we're special
on this planet, being the only technologically advanced species. Still, I don't worship us at all.
Sometimes, I think we're pathetic. Constantly killing, fighting, stealing, mocking; it makes me
ashamed to be human. Our maturity needs to catch up with our ability to cause pain.
And evolution is not a religion (I get the impression that you might think it is), it is a theory
(please read that misconceptions FAQ before you say "Exactly! It's just a theory!") proposed to
explained observed phenomena.
>Tony
>"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all
>things is God" ó Hebrews 3:4
In ending, I'd like to say that evolution has nothing to do with there being or not being a creator.
If you want to bug people about trying to disprove a creator, bug astrophysicists who are trying to
understand how our universe started. I leave a door open to the possibilty that the universe _was_
created, as noone is quite sure how the universe started. However, I'm confident that we will one
day understand how it started.
Also, read
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
I have yet to get through it all, however : )
-----------
Michael
Some after-thoughts on universe creating:
- If we were to create a universe, would it be observable? It would be its own space-time
continuum, so wouldn't it be separate from our own S-T continuum, and therefore unobservable to us?
If we made a universe, would we even know that we had succeeded in making one?
- God or no God, what says we can't make universes?
- I've heard that we have the tech to make a black hole by using an H-bomb to create a super-dense
object which would turn into a black hole. Does anyone know if this is true or not?
tony williams
> Go ahead, create a Universe.
> Then you will have proof that there is no God,
> and you will have a reasonable argument.No, we will have just proved ourselves to be 'gods'. And in so doing,
forever devalued the concept of a deity- but also opening up the
possiblity that our own universe was created. By the mythological
patriarch from your Bible? Nope.
More likely, by scientists.
To believe in a creator would mean that you would now be accountable to Him for the lifestyle you choose to live, a lifestyle the creator might not approve of. So rather than investigate for yourself whether a creator exists or not, most evolutionists are content to reject anything that suggests one. This way, they can continue to bask in their self-indulgent, humanistic conceit. That is why, when presented with polite and logical questions regarding evolution, most evolutionists respond with rudeness and condescending responses (though to be fair, the behavior and reasonings of many 'creationists' has left much to be desired as well).
Evolution is nothing more that the religion of self-worship.
Tony
"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed
all things is God" — Hebrews 3:4
Shane D. Killian
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Eric responds to Shane:
> Perhaps the best way to describe why microevolution cannot lead to
> macroevolution is via the cell's ability to defeat attempts at
> mutation. We know that mutations are very destructive.
>
harmful, DEPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT. If it is a detriment to survival
in that environment, it's usually weeded out by natural selection. If
it's helpful, it gets spread around the population.
A perfect example is sickle cell. Someone with two sickle cell genes has
sickle cell anemia, so one might assume that it's a detriment. However,
someone with at least one sickle cell gene is immune to malaria.
Now, take a world map and draw the areas where sickle cell originated.
Now draw the areas with high instances of malaria. You have just drawn
the same map!
> Because of this tendency for the genetic code to code FIXIVITY of
> species, even mutations cannot bring about speciation.
>
Since your basic starting point is severely flawed, the rest of your
argument is invalid. It's a good try, but you might want to try getting
your science from somewhere other than creationist tracts.
The DataRat
Do you mean like all the xians in this NG working together in perfect
harmony?
The datarat
Reverend DataRat ULC ordained minister since 1967
Visit BIBLICAL ERRANCY: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld
maff91
<slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Eric responds to Shane:
>Perhaps the best way to describe why microevolution cannot lead to
>macroevolution is via the cell's ability to defeat attempts at mutation. We
Macroevolution
Try http://x35.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=472127096
>know that mutations are very destructive. Mutations which are passed along
>from parent to offspring almost always harm the offspring, or, do not bring
>about speciation. An example would be the studies done with fruit flys. We
>have studied thousands of generations and have noticed mutations occuring,
>most of which are destructive. Those that are not still don't bring about
>speciation. They fruit flys are still...fruit flys even after thousands and
>thousands of generations. What this indicates is the mechanism for fixivity
>within all cells is so strong that even when mutations -are- passed along
>safely to offspring, the offspring cannot utilize this new information to
>bring about speciation.
>Because of this tendency for the genetic code to code FIXIVITY of species,
>even mutations cannot bring about speciation.
>Eric.
[...]
--
L.P.#0000000001
Al Klein
wrote:
>A perfect example is sickle cell. Someone with two sickle cell genes has
>sickle cell anemia, so one might assume that it's a detriment. However,
>someone with at least one sickle cell gene is immune to malaria.
>Now, take a world map and draw the areas where sickle cell originated.
>Now draw the areas with high instances of malaria. You have just drawn
>the same map!
That's kind of obvious, if you understand how natural selection works,
and assume a single parent with a single sickle cell gene, isn't it?
:)
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Craig
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:05:01 -0700, Eric Christy
><slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric responds to Shane:
>>Perhaps the best way to describe why microevolution cannot lead to
>>macroevolution is via the cell's ability to defeat attempts at mutation. We
>
>Macroevolution
>Try http://x35.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=472127096
That's nice, your site references lots of other sites, and make
assertions that it's statements are fact, yet, never provides the
facts.
I haven't the time to check each site, weed them down and point to the
best conclusive proof that you assert.
Better yet, read Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. As a
biochemist, he destroys the hypothesis of Darwinian macroevolution.
Shalom
Craig
Eric Christy
I wrote Dr. Michael Behe recently and this is the result of that email...
Eric, asking Dr. Michael Behe:
> I have a question which is very important for me to answer.
> Can amino structures (even chains of them leading to
> proteins) be broken up while in solution when in contact
> with other chemical compounds?
Dr. Behe:
Sure. Especially reaction with aldehydes.
Eric:
> If so, then wouldn't it be reasonable that the
> evolving amino acids- leading to- proteins would encounter
> myriad compounds in their liquid environment which would act
> to destroy any complexity they might have accidentally
> evolved over time?
Dr. Behe:
Quite reasonable.
Eric:
> If so, would this make gradualism impossible?
Dr. Behe:
I certainly think so. Best wishes.
Mike Behe
Eric Christy
You might wish to get Dr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" and see for
yourself whether his conclusions are scientifically sound.
I find them to be, but it's up to you to check for yourself.
Eric.
Shane D. Killian
In article <37cf08f1...@cnews.newsguy.com>,
cra...@dasia.net (Craig ) wrote:
> On 24 Aug 1999 15:37:04 -0500, maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91)
> wrote:
>
> >Macroevolution
> >Try http://x35.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=472127096
>
> That's nice, your site references lots of other sites, and make
> assertions that it's statements are fact, yet, never provides the
> facts. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^
And then we see:
> I haven't the time to check each site,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you couldn't be bothered to check the sources, then you have no idea
if they provided the facts or not.
> Better yet, read Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. As a
> biochemist, he destroys the hypothesis of Darwinian macroevolution.
>
You'll do a lot better if you find someone other than Behe as well. I
know of no other scientists that take him seriously, outside the ICR...
And why do you creationists never answer the questions? What *about* the
sickle cell gene? What *about* the twin nested heierarchies? And what
*is* the mechanism that prevents macroevolution?
You do nothing but change the subject.
Shane D. Killian
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Eric responds to Al Klein:
> I wrote Dr. Michael Behe recently and this is the result of that
> email...
> Eric, asking Dr. Michael Behe:
>
takes him seriously?
And what on *EARTH* does this exchange have to do with what we're
talking about?
Another creationist evades the issue...
Come on, guys!
What about the sickle cell gene?
What about the twin nested heierarchies?
Answer the question!
Eric Christy
Shane, I don't know about the sickle cell genes yet.
I don't know about twin nested hierarchies yet.
What I'm discussing is something which Dr. Behe brought out and is rocking
the evolutionist field.
I am just starting out majoring in biochemistry and will learn about sickle
cells and TNH.
So, be patient.
However, if you know about sickle cells and TNH, you ought to know about
what I'm bringing into the conversation, ie problems of amino acids
reacting with the chemical environement they find themselves in, just never
allowing them to produce complex protein structures which are the building
blocks of the cell.
You don't seem to understand that if the amino-to-protein sequences could
not have occured (due to chemical recombinations) there is -no- point in
discussions of evolution.
If it is impossible to bring about the first cells because of the problem
of chemical recombination, there is no evolution.
You cannot have a monkey turning into a man if you don't have the monkey to
start with.
And, you wouldn't have the monkey or our common ancestor -if- you cannot
have amino acids becoming proteins.
Eric.
- Mr Bill
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote in article <37C5D208...@uswest.net>...
> Eric to Shane:
> Shane, I don't know about the sickle cell genes yet.
> I don't know about twin nested hierarchies yet.
> What I'm discussing is something which Dr. Behe brought out and is rocking
> the evolutionist field.
> I am just starting out majoring in biochemistry and will learn about sickle
> cells and TNH.
> So, be patient.
> However, if you know about sickle cells and TNH, you ought to know about
> what I'm bringing into the conversation, ie problems of amino acids
> reacting with the chemical environement they find themselves in, just never
> allowing them to produce complex protein structures which are the building
> blocks of the cell.
> You don't seem to understand that if the amino-to-protein sequences could
> not have occured (due to chemical recombinations) there is -no- point in
> discussions of evolution.
> If it is impossible to bring about the first cells because of the problem
> of chemical recombination, there is no evolution.
> You cannot have a monkey turning into a man if you don't have the monkey to
> start with.
> And, you wouldn't have the monkey or our common ancestor -if- you cannot
> have amino acids becoming proteins.
> Eric.
>
And even in the extremely unlikely event the
theory that explains evolution, or even evolution itself
is determined to be completely false .... that would in
no way support or lend credence to, even remotely,
the myth of a god created universe...
any questions?
Shane D. Killian
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Eric to Shane:
> Shane, I don't know about the sickle cell genes yet.
> I don't know about twin nested hierarchies yet.
> What I'm discussing is something which Dr. Behe brought out and is
> rocking the evolutionist field.
>
behind him. He has "rocked" nothing.
> However, if you know about sickle cells and TNH, you ought to know
> about what I'm bringing into the conversation, ie problems of amino
> acids reacting with the chemical environement they find themselves in,
> just never allowing them to produce complex protein structures which
> are the building blocks of the cell.
> You don't seem to understand that if the amino-to-protein sequences
> could not have occured (due to chemical recombinations) there is -no-
> point in discussions of evolution. If it is impossible to bring about
> the first cells because of the problem of chemical recombination,
> there is no evolution.
>
This has *NOTHING* to do with evolution. Evolution haz zilch to do with
the *start* of life, merely the *development* of life after it began,
however it began.
PETER ELFVIN
- Mr Bill wrote:
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote in article <37C5D208...@uswest.net>...
> > Eric to Shane:
> > Shane, I don't know about the sickle cell genes yet.
> > I don't know about twin nested hierarchies yet.
> > What I'm discussing is something which Dr. Behe brought out and is rocking
> > the evolutionist field.
> > I am just starting out majoring in biochemistry and will learn about sickle
> > cells and TNH.
> > So, be patient.
> > However, if you know about sickle cells and TNH, you ought to know about
> > what I'm bringing into the conversation, ie problems of amino acids
> > reacting with the chemical environement they find themselves in, just never
> > allowing them to produce complex protein structures which are the building
> > blocks of the cell.
> > You don't seem to understand that if the amino-to-protein sequences could
> > not have occured (due to chemical recombinations) there is -no- point in
> > discussions of evolution.
> > If it is impossible to bring about the first cells because of the problem
> > of chemical recombination, there is no evolution.
> > You cannot have a monkey turning into a man if you don't have the monkey to
> > start with.
> > And, you wouldn't have the monkey or our common ancestor -if- you cannot
> > have amino acids becoming proteins.
> > Eric.
> >
>
> And even in the extremely unlikely event the
> theory that explains evolution, or even evolution itself
> is determined to be completely false .... that would in
> no way support or lend credence to, even remotely,
> the myth of a god created universe...
>
> any questions?
First, there is more than one theory of evolution.
Second, one of the great biologists of our time, Dr Karl Popper, took issue with Physics
ove whether an amoebas eye spot could be a survival trait. Physics demanded a brain to
interpret what the eye was seeing. Physics also said that it was possible for a creature
to exist, or a plant to exist, that reflected only wavelengths of light that were
invisible to humans. Popper stated that humans eyes did not develop in a vacuum, that
whatever was a potential hazard would be seen, and that Physics and Biology used mutually
exclusive philosophies, and one could be a science, but not both.
Second, if you are going to deny my arguments before we start, what is the use? Your mind
is closed.
--
Visit my home page at http://members.home.net/elvish1/relig-1.htm
for links to all kinds of information on Christian Belief.
Sections are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Heresy.
Orthodox perspective as to what constitutes Heresy.
Dr. Necrophage
>>
>> And even in the extremely unlikely event the
>> theory that explains evolution, or even evolution itself
>> is determined to be completely false .... that would in
>> no way support or lend credence to, even remotely,
>> the myth of a god created universe...
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Eric to Mr Bill:
> If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you deny
> a creator?
Why would a 'creator' have to be *your* particular 'god'
thingy at all?
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> If the reason that evolution were proven false was due to
> the proof that life is too complex to have come into being
> by accidents of nature, so that even evolutionists no
> longer believe in evolution, why would you then not accept
> the theory of creation?
Why not the 'theory' of Panspermia, or the 'theory' that
life on earth was genetically engineered by an alien race
called the 'Old Ones' who came to the Earth in the
Precambrian era?
Once again why should a 'creator' have to be *your*
particular 'god' thingy and not something else entirely?
Dr. Necrophage
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Eric Christy
The creator doesn't have to be my 'god' thingy. He could be any thingy that was
the creator.
It could be the "Old Ones" from planet X for that matter.
But if aliens seeded our planet, one should ask who created them? This question
goes back to origins and we can even ask who created the creator. If it can be
determined that there must be a first uncreated creator, then I call that God.
Eric.
Dr. Necrophage
>> >>
>> >> And even in the extremely unlikely event the
>> >> theory that explains evolution, or even evolution
>> >> itself is determined to be completely false ....
>> >> that would in no way support or lend credence to,
>> >> even remotely, the myth of a god created universe...
>>
>> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> >Eric to Mr Bill:
>> > If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you
>> > deny a creator?
>> Why would a 'creator' have to be *your* particular 'god'
>> thingy at all?
>>
>> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> > If the reason that evolution were proven false was due
>> > to the proof that life is too complex to have come
>> > into being by accidents of nature, so that even
>> > evolutionists no longer believe in evolution, why
>> > would you then not accept the theory of creation?
Dr. Necrophage:
>> Why not the 'theory' of Panspermia, or the 'theory' that
>> life on earth was genetically engineered by an alien
>> race called the 'Old Ones' who came to the Earth in the
>> Precambrian era?
>>
>> Once again why should a 'creator' have to be *your*
>> particular 'god' thingy and not something else entirely?
>>
>> Dr. Necrophage
>>
>Eric to Dr. Necrophage":
> The creator doesn't have to be my 'god' thingy. He could
> be any thingy that was the creator.
Thats not what *most* so-called 'creationists' say in their
rhetoric, forgive me if I assumed that your position was
simmilar to theirs. Most 'creationists' go on and on about
how if evolution isn't a fact that 'god' was the only
alternative, which is blatently false.
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> It could be the "Old Ones" from planet X for that matter.
> But if aliens seeded our planet, one should ask who
> created them? This question goes back to origins and we
> can even ask who created the creator. If it can be
> determined that there must be a first uncreated creator,
> then I call that God.
That's a *big* if. This also says nothing as to why anyone
should wish to worship a 'creator' if all it did was
'create' and it had no redeaming qualities apart from that.
What if this 'creator' entity created everything
accidentally, or even as a cruel game where it could torture
maim and kill things for fun.
Mere 'creation' is insufficient as a meritorious quality.
Absent any other emperical experimentally validated
evidence *for* any particular 'creator' why invest any
effort in 'worshiping' a 'creator' whose other
particular attributes lie outside any ability to empirically
determine?
Al Klein
<slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you deny a creator?
If evolution is proved to be untrue, and there's still no evidence for
the existence of a god, why would we believe in a god?
> If the reason that evolution were proven false was due to the proof that life is too
> complex to have come into being by accidents of nature
Which can't happen, since evolution has nothing to do with how life
came about.
If the "theory" of god were proven to be untrue, due to the fact that
there are no bird with blue feathers, would you stop believing?
> so that even evolutionists no
> longer believe in evolution, why would you then not accept the theory of creation?
1) because proving evolution wrong has nothing to do with creation.
2) WHAT "theory" of creation? We have yet to see anything more than
an ASSERTION of creation.
3) "theory" doesn't mean "assertion". What predictions, that have
come to pass, has this supposed "theory of creation" made? What is
the method of falsifiability for this "theory"?
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
John Quinley
Dr. Necrophage wrote in message
<0b51f39f...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>...
> >- Mr Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> And even in the extremely unlikely event the
> >> theory that explains evolution, or even evolution itself
> >> is determined to be completely false .... that would in
> >> no way support or lend credence to, even remotely,
> >> the myth of a god created universe...
>
>Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>Eric to Mr Bill:
>> a creator?
>
>thingy at all?
>
>> If the reason that evolution were proven false was due to
>> the proof that life is too complex to have come into being
>> longer believe in evolution, why would you then not accept
>> the theory of creation?
>
snip....
It has been demonstrated over and over in computer simulations and in real
life engineering scenarios that the random and non-random mechanisms used to
describe evolution can and do provide complexity. There are computer
programs that are running right now that are predicting stock market changes
better than humans can, and these programs came about using random mutation
and natural selection. They were not engineered, but they do better than
what we could have done if we engineered a program to do the same thing.
Therefore, we do not need a creator or an engineer to explain the complexity
in the eco-system. All we need is time and a mechanism to kill off the
losers we got about 4 billion years of that.
John Quinley
Eric Christy
As you must know now, I am willing to consider another creator -besides- the
creator spoken of in the bible. As I see it, the universe is a designed
'machine' all the way from the macro stage to the micro. Since I view the
universe as a very complex machine, I think it makes sense to speak of a
creator.
It doesn't have to be the God of the bible. I personally hold that view, but I
know it doesn't have to be.
If we can assume that matter had a starting point in time, way back when, then
we can speculate on the finite series from that point in time. If we allow a
beginning for matter/time, then we are forced to start a mathematic series
describing these variables from a specific point. That being the case, the
logical question to ask is 'what brought about the initial
variables/conditions'.
If the entrance of matter into space requires a source, or creator of some kind,
then matter is not eternal and that which brought this matter into existence
pre-exists it.
This I call God, the creator.
Eric.
"Dr. Necrophage" wrote:
> >> >- Mr Bill wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> And even in the extremely unlikely event the
> >> >> theory that explains evolution, or even evolution
> >> >> itself is determined to be completely false ....
> >> >> that would in no way support or lend credence to,
> >> >> even remotely, the myth of a god created universe...
> >>
> >> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> >Eric to Mr Bill:
> >> > If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you
> >> > deny a creator?
>
> Dr. Necrophage:
> >> Why would a 'creator' have to be *your* particular 'god'
> >> thingy at all?
> >>
> >> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> > If the reason that evolution were proven false was due
> >> > to the proof that life is too complex to have come
> >> > into being by accidents of nature, so that even
> >> > evolutionists no longer believe in evolution, why
> >> > would you then not accept the theory of creation?
>
Dr. Necrophage
> Eric to Dr. Necrophage:
> As you must know now, I am willing to consider another
> creator -besides- the creator spoken of in the bible. As
> I see it, the universe is a designed 'machine' all the
> way from the macro stage to the micro.
Since we are going into flights of unproven fancy here, the
universe may also be veiwed not as a 'machine' but as an
'organism.' A *living* thing vs a 'mechanism' one then
could ask what gave *birth* to the universe? If the
universe can be successfully modled as a 'living' organism
then a 'designer' becomes unlikely, but a 'mother' of some
kind then seems very likely. I propose the Babolonian
goddes of Chaos the Dragon Tiamat, who in the Enuma Elish
gave birth to the universe.
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Since I view the universe as a very complex machine, I
> think it makes sense to speak of a creator. It doesn't
> have to be the God of the bible. I personally hold that
> view, but I know it doesn't have to be.
You are then amungst a very small minority of the
'creationists' I have met.
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> If we can assume that matter had a starting point in
> time, way back when, then we can speculate on the finite
> series from that point in time.
But is 'time' actually linear like that? Since 'time' is a
feature of what is typically called 'spacetime' by
physicists it does not have an existence 'outside' of
the matter/energy matrix of which we and all things we
can know are manifestations. Our *perception* of 'time' may
be linear, but that does not mean that spacetime operates
that way, perhaps (since we are in the relm of wild
speculation here anyway) spacetime is a like 'mobious' strip
with no beginning or ending. Perhaps what appears to us to
be evidence for a 'Big Bang' is merely the limit of our
ability to 'see,' like the universe's 'horizon.'
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> If we allow a beginning for matter/time, then we are
> forced to start a mathematic series describing these
> variables from a specific point. That being the case,
> the logical question to ask is 'what brought about the
> initial variables/conditions'.
> If the entrance of matter into space requires a source,
> or creator of some kind, then matter is not eternal and
> that which brought this matter into existence
> pre-exists it.
> This I call God, the creator.
But why worship or care about such an entity, of what *use*
can that knowlege be put is all we can know is that there
was a start? And even if an entity started the universe why
should it have to either still exist or care at all about
insects like us. Perhaps as with Tiamat it gave birth to
other 'gods' that killed it and who themselves have passed
now away?
Dr. Necrophage
Eric Christy
You hit the nail on the head with the question about "But, is time really like
that?"
If time is nonlinear, then what would it be based on?
As far as we can tell, time -is- linear and proceeds stepwise in only one
direction.
We know this because, the clock hand always moves forward and in the same
stepwise motion...:)
You would certainly have a point about the relationship between matter and time
-if- there were gaps in time or nonlinearities in time.
But, as far as we can tell, time is a function which increments by nearly
infinitesimal amounts. Maybe time is the 'perfect' integrator?
It's my guess (and it's only a guess mind you) that time is that which allows
changes in matter. In other words, time is a quality of nature which allows
change to occur.
If we could add up all the changes from the present backwards, we should (if the
universe had a beginning, hence a creator) come up with a finite amount of
matter in a finite amount of time.
If it were proven that there is a finite amount of matter, then there must be a
point in time when this matter began to expand via the big bang. With an
expanding universe, you are forced to start from some initial non-expanding
state. This being the case, it is totally logical to view a point in time when
the universe first blew up, ie big bang.
But, since matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, where did the first matter
come from to blow up, unless there was a creator to bring it into existence?
Eric.
PETER ELFVIN
"Dr. Necrophage" wrote:
No, I won't forgive you for your extreme prejudice against the proposition that
God created .
It is so extreme, that several people taking your position have contented
themselves with attacking everyones supposed reading of creationist tracts and
mindless parroting of material learned by rote.
Civil debate ends when such straw men appear. When the well is poisoned, when
the false dilemma is posed. it ceases to become debate and becomes propaganda.
You even enclose creationists in quotes to imply that they are not really
believers in creation, but have a political agenda they are using religion to
push. others call them "cretinists". Both practices are bad manners, as if I had
called you an "evolutionist", implying that evolution was entirely secondary to
your lust for political power.
Now , as I see it, there are three ways that species can arise
1: creation
2: evolution from simpler forms, which arise from basic chemicals
3: evolution from random collections of molecules that happen to get together in
non-probable ways.(Greek arising out of Chaos)
do you see a fourth way?
>
>
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > It could be the "Old Ones" from planet X for that matter.
> > But if aliens seeded our planet, one should ask who
> > created them? This question goes back to origins and we
> > can even ask who created the creator. If it can be
> > determined that there must be a first uncreated creator,
> > then I call that God.
>
> That's a *big* if. This also says nothing as to why anyone
> should wish to worship a 'creator' if all it did was
> 'create' and it had no redeaming qualities apart from that.
> What if this 'creator' entity created everything
> accidentally, or even as a cruel game where it could torture
> maim and kill things for fun.
>
> Mere 'creation' is insufficient as a meritorious quality.
>
> Absent any other emperical experimentally validated
> evidence *for* any particular 'creator' why invest any
> effort in 'worshiping' a 'creator' whose other
> particular attributes lie outside any ability to empirically
> determine?
>
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
PETER ELFVIN
"Dr. Necrophage" wrote:
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > Eric to Dr. Necrophage:
> > As you must know now, I am willing to consider another
> > creator -besides- the creator spoken of in the bible. As
> > I see it, the universe is a designed 'machine' all the
> > way from the macro stage to the micro.
>
> Since we are going into flights of unproven fancy here, the
> universe may also be veiwed not as a 'machine' but as an
> 'organism.' A *living* thing vs a 'mechanism' one then
> could ask what gave *birth* to the universe? If the
> universe can be successfully modled as a 'living' organism
> then a 'designer' becomes unlikely, but a 'mother' of some
> kind then seems very likely. I propose the Babolonian
> goddes of Chaos the Dragon Tiamat, who in the Enuma Elish
> gave birth to the universe.
>
Tiamat is only a Dragon in D&D adventure gaming. In Babylonian myth, she was the
salt water, who with the fresh water (Apsu), combined and gave birth to the
Gods. Marduk battled her, distended her body with destructive winds, and made
the earth out of her body. She did not birth the cosmos, she birthed the Gods.
You are probably looking for a different example, like Shiva, or Kali.
--
PETER ELFVIN
Al Klein wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:52:45 -0700, Eric Christy
> <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you deny a creator?
>
> If evolution is proved to be untrue, and there's still no evidence for
> the existence of a god, why would we believe in a god?
>
> > If the reason that evolution were proven false was due to the proof that life is too
> > complex to have come into being by accidents of nature
>
> Which can't happen, since evolution has nothing to do with how life
> came about.
>
> If the "theory" of god were proven to be untrue, due to the fact that
> there are no bird with blue feathers, would you stop believing?
>
> > so that even evolutionists no
> > longer believe in evolution, why would you then not accept the theory of creation?
>
> 1) because proving evolution wrong has nothing to do with creation.
>
> 2) WHAT "theory" of creation? We have yet to see anything more than
> an ASSERTION of creation.
>
> 3) "theory" doesn't mean "assertion". What predictions, that have
> come to pass, has this supposed "theory of creation" made? What is
> the method of falsifiability for this "theory"?
> --
> Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Falsafiability is the god of science, not biology. See Karl Popper for a complete
statement on the difference between them.
For a religious explanation, I include the following:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I stop
struck with admiration at this thought. What shall I first say? Where shall I
begin my story? Shall I show forth the vanity of the Gentiles? Shall I exalt
the truth of our faith? The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to
explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm anti unshaken,
each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are
sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant
to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause
presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in
sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the
origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that
atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union,
the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births
and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the
strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers
who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little
consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their inherent atheism it
appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all
was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the
creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the
name of God; "In the beginning God created." What a glorious order! He first
establishes a beginning, so that it might not be supposed that the world never
had a beginning. Then be adds "Created" to show that which was made was a very
small part of the power of the Creator. In the same way that the potter, after
having made with equal pains a great number of vessels, has not exhausted
either his art or his talent; thus the Maker of the Universe, whose creative
power, far from being bounded by one world, could extend to the infinite,
needed only the impulse of His will to bring the immensities of the visible
world into being. If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been
created, enquire who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator: or
rather, in the fear that human reasonings may make you wander from the truth,
Moses has anticipated enquiry by engraving in our hearts, as a seal and a
safeguard, the awful name of God: "In the beginning God created"--It is He,
beneficent Nature, Goodness without measure, a worthy object of love for all
beings endowed with reason, the beauty the most to be desired, the origin of
all that exists, the source of life, intellectual light, impenetrable wisdom,
it is He who "in the beginning created heaven and earth."
Basil the Great
Hexaemeron: HOMILY 1 (excerpt)
Matt Miller
> Now , as I see it, there are three ways that species can arise
> 1: creation
> 2: evolution from simpler forms, which arise from basic chemicals
> 3: evolution from random collections of molecules that happen to get together in
> non-probable ways.(Greek arising out of Chaos)
>
> do you see a fourth way?
Yeah, chemical reactions. Chemistry does not operate by chance.
--
Matt Miller | http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr | a.a# 357
EAC Spokesmodel
"Under the rocks and stones
there is water underground."
-The Talking Heads
Dr. Necrophage
PETER ELFVIN <elv...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Dr. Necrophage" wrote:
>
> > Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > > Eric to Dr. Necrophage:
> > > As you must know now, I am willing to consider another
> > > creator -besides- the creator spoken of in the bible. As
> > > I see it, the universe is a designed 'machine' all the
> > > way from the macro stage to the micro.
> >
> > Since we are going into flights of unproven fancy here, the
> > universe may also be veiwed not as a 'machine' but as an
> > 'organism.' A *living* thing vs a 'mechanism' one then
> > could ask what gave *birth* to the universe? If the
> > universe can be successfully modled as a 'living' organism
> > then a 'designer' becomes unlikely, but a 'mother' of some
> > kind then seems very likely. I propose the Babolonian
> > goddes of Chaos the Dragon Tiamat, who in the Enuma Elish
> > gave birth to the universe.
> >
PETER ELFVIN <elv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Tiamat is only a Dragon in D&D adventure gaming. In Babylonian myth,
> she was the salt water, who with the fresh water (Apsu), combined and
> gave birth to the Gods. Marduk battled her, distended her body with
> destructive winds, and made the earth out of her body. She did not
> birth the cosmos, she birthed the Gods.
> You are probably looking for a different example, like Shiva, or Kali.
You're right, of course, but in the background of modern 'magickal'
tradition this D&Desque attribution is actually used and occured to me
first. I should have stuck more traditional mythologies, but as I
think it's all fiction anyway I tend to use what I feel is
aesthetically appropriate at the time.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
Dr. Necrophage
> really like that?" If time is nonlinear, then what would it be based
> on? As far as we can tell, time -is- linear and proceeds stepwise in
> only one direction.
You are very right to say 'as far as we can tell' since we are embedded
in this dimensional matrix how is it that we can tell 'time' actually
'proceedes' in the manner we think it does?
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> We know this because, the clock hand always moves forward and in the
> same stepwise motion...:)
So, if we run a clock backwards, 'time' runs backwards?
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> You would certainly have a point about the relationship between matter
> and time -if- there were gaps in time or nonlinearities in time.
> But, as far as we can tell, time is a function which increments by
> nearly infinitesimal amounts. Maybe time is the 'perfect' integrator?
> It's my guess (and it's only a guess mind you) that time is that which
> allows changes in matter.
Another model is that the concept of 'time' arises from the observation
of changes in matter, and is not a thing different from 'matter,' simply
another feature of it.
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> In other words, time is a quality of nature which allows change to
> occur. If we could add up all the changes from the present backwards,
> we should (if the universe had a beginning, hence a creator) come up
> with a finite amount of matter in a finite amount of time. If it were
> proven that there is a finite amount of matter, then there must be a
> point in time when this matter began to expand via the big bang.
Why would the finitude of the spacetime continuum we currently appear
to inhabit, or its expansion, lead to the conclusion of 'creation?'
Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> With an expanding universe, you are forced to start from some
> initial non-expanding state. This being the case, it is totally
> logical to view a point in time when the universe first blew up, ie
> big bang. But, since matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, where
> did the first matter come from to blow up, unless there was a creator
> to bring it into existence?
Suppose the point from which 'expansion' occured is but the 'place' to
which a previous spacetime continuum had collapsed to and this current
'expansion' is but one of an 'infinite' series of such events?
Eric Christy
The "infinite series" of big bang, expansion, collapse would have to have a
1st occurence.
If the universe were an oscillating universe, then it would have to have the
1st occurence in the "infinite series". This being the case, what brought
the matter into existence?
Eric.
"Dr. Necrophage" wrote:
> In article <37C71916...@uswest.net>,
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > Eric to Dr. Necrophage:
> > You hit the nail on the head with the question about "But, is time
> > really like that?" If time is nonlinear, then what would it be based
> > on? As far as we can tell, time -is- linear and proceeds stepwise in
> > only one direction.
>
> You are very right to say 'as far as we can tell' since we are embedded
> in this dimensional matrix how is it that we can tell 'time' actually
> 'proceedes' in the manner we think it does?
>
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > We know this because, the clock hand always moves forward and in the
> > same stepwise motion...:)
>
> So, if we run a clock backwards, 'time' runs backwards?
>
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > You would certainly have a point about the relationship between matter
> > and time -if- there were gaps in time or nonlinearities in time.
> > But, as far as we can tell, time is a function which increments by
> > nearly infinitesimal amounts. Maybe time is the 'perfect' integrator?
> > It's my guess (and it's only a guess mind you) that time is that which
> > allows changes in matter.
>
> Another model is that the concept of 'time' arises from the observation
> of changes in matter, and is not a thing different from 'matter,' simply
> another feature of it.
>
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > In other words, time is a quality of nature which allows change to
> > occur. If we could add up all the changes from the present backwards,
> > we should (if the universe had a beginning, hence a creator) come up
> > with a finite amount of matter in a finite amount of time. If it were
> > proven that there is a finite amount of matter, then there must be a
> > point in time when this matter began to expand via the big bang.
>
> Why would the finitude of the spacetime continuum we currently appear
> to inhabit, or its expansion, lead to the conclusion of 'creation?'
>
> Eric Christy <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > With an expanding universe, you are forced to start from some
> > initial non-expanding state. This being the case, it is totally
> > logical to view a point in time when the universe first blew up, ie
> > big bang. But, since matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, where
> > did the first matter come from to blow up, unless there was a creator
> > to bring it into existence?
>
Al Klein
wrote:
> Al Klein wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:52:45 -0700, Eric Christy
> > <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > > If evolution is proven a false theory, why would you deny a creator?
> > If evolution is proved to be untrue, and there's still no evidence for
> > the existence of a god, why would we believe in a god?
> > > If the reason that evolution were proven false was due to the proof that life is too
> > > complex to have come into being by accidents of nature
> > Which can't happen, since evolution has nothing to do with how life
> > came about.
> > If the "theory" of god were proven to be untrue, due to the fact that
> > there are no bird with blue feathers, would you stop believing?
> > > so that even evolutionists no
> > > longer believe in evolution, why would you then not accept the theory of creation?
> > 1) because proving evolution wrong has nothing to do with creation.
> > 2) WHAT "theory" of creation? We have yet to see anything more than
> > an ASSERTION of creation.
> > 3) "theory" doesn't mean "assertion". What predictions, that have
> > come to pass, has this supposed "theory of creation" made? What is
> > the method of falsifiability for this "theory"?
> Falsafiability is the god of science, not biology. See Karl Popper for a complete
> statement on the difference between them.
> For a religious explanation, I include the following:
[explanation snipped]
You still haven't stated any theory, you've made an assertion.
David P. Johnson
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> In article <37b5...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "Dore Williamson" <spiri...@supernet.com> wrote:
> > the question was..
> > > :> Explain scientifically what is the mechanism
> > > :> which can permit immense variation within a
> > > :> species, but stops that huge variation dead
> > > :> at the species "boundary" such that macro
> > > :> evolution cannot occur.
>
> I've been asking this question of Creationists for years, and have yet
> to receive an answer. Why is this so difficult? If you disbelieve
> macroevolution, then there must be some mechanism preventing it.
> *Something* that prevents small-scale changes froma ccumulating into
> large ones. Inches from becoming feet. Feet from becoming yards. Yards
> from becoming miles.
>
> This is a very fair question about the cornerstone of creationism. So
> stop shirking and answer the question!!!
It is an interesting question in an academic sense. But as an argument
against creationists it is a stupid one. (I don't know why they don't
do this, perhaps because they're idiots, but) creationists need only
note (correctly) that there does indeed seem to be such a "species
boundary" beyond which evolution does not occur. This has been shown in
experiment after experiment, in fruit flies, in bacteria, it has been
observed in the fossil record. Even the famous peppered moth study
provides absolutely no evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof
instead lies with the evolutionists to show that in fact speciation
_can_ occur. This has never been demonstrated. Ever. Why? No one knows.
But you can't peg that on creationists.
Darwin stated "natura non facit saltum," or nature does not make jumps.
This is the very essence of gradualism; it is the foundation on which
evolutionary theory is built. Darwin noted that there were large gaps
in the fossil record, and that gradualism was not supported by the
evidence during his lifetime. But, as a good scientist, he made a bold
prediction. Namely that as more fossils were collected, the "gaps"
would be filled by gradual transition from one morphological group to
another. In fact, he stated that if it turned out not to be the case,
his theory would prove useless.
This prediction has now been shown to be wrong. Even though our
documentation of the fossil record is immensely more complete now,
there is simply no evidence of gradualism (with the possible single
exception of archeopterix). Species appear of a sudden, fully
developed, with no ancestors, persist relatively unchanged for millions
of years, and then often suffer sudden extinction. This flies in the
very face of gradualism, and has required that adjuncts to the theory
of evolution be proposed in order to avoid abandoning it altogether.
This is precisely why people like Steven J. Gould have proposed
additions to the theory such as so-called punctuated equilibrium (read
"then a miracle occurs"), which are intneded to allow the general
proposals of Darwin to remain in the face of contradictory evidence.
One of the problems with punctuated equilibrium is that it is subject
to the same line of questioning that Mr. Williamson uses. Explain
scientifically what is the mechanism which can permit gross
morphological variation within one, or a very few, generation(s). The
difference here, of course, is that now it is indeed a fair question.
Another problem with the elasticizing of evolution through exceptional
proposals such as punctuated equilibrium is that it relies on circular
reasoning. It starts out with the assumption that evolution is "true."
It then notes that there are data that do not fit the theory as
currently proposed. It declares that since evolution is true, then
there must be a mechanism by which it could have produced the data in
the first place. It then engages in pure speculation about how the data
could actually be explained. And finally, with the modified prop in
place, it claims that the seemingly "troublesome" data actually
_confirm_ the theory in the end.
This is not science. It is creative writing. It is historical
speculation. The bacteriological experiments in microevolution are
science. The experiments on fruit flies are science. The peppered moth
study is science. All of these studies analyze observable data. They
have error bars, and standards of repeatability. Where science ends and
dreamland starts is when people assert that since microevolution within
a species has been observed to exist, that all life that we currently
observe evolved from a common single-cell ancestor that occurred from
random chemical combinations in some organic primordial soup. That
extrapolates well beyond the error bars of observed fact, and strains
credibility beyond imagination. It is, in fact, the birth of a new
creation myth.
So here's my challenge to evolutionists, stated again because you have
probably forgotten it by now:
It has been shown that nature indeed makes regular, and sometimes very
large jumps. Explain scientifically what is the mechanism which can
permit gross morphological variation within one, or a very few,
generation(s).
I have never met an evolutionist that could give me an answer to that
one.
In article <7q65o3$ir5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> This has *NOTHING* to do with evolution. Evolution haz zilch to do with
> the *start* of life, merely the *development* of life after it began,
> however it began.
This statement is either made in ignorance, or is intentionally
disingenuous. Darwin's "natura non facit saltum" states that even life
itself must have occurred from a gradual development of chemical
synthesis driven by chance and natural selection. It _is_ a creation
myth, just like belief in a god is. Myth because there is no way to
verify if it actually occurred. It is simply assumed that it must have
occurred because we can't rely on a(n embarrassingly supernatural) god
to explain our existence, now can we.
One final note. Since we have begun to appreciate the vast (vast)
complexity of even single-celled life forms, and the extremely high
level of improbability of them having developed at random, almost
immediately after liquid water appeared on the earth, other theories
have had to be proposed, such a so-called transpermia (or, the space
aliens theory). This is the suggestion that simple life forms were
somehow (miraculously) transported to earth intact from (somewhere
else). Yikes! That's science fiction, and is just as embarrassing as
having to rely on a (creator).
--
David
->(Signature continues here)
Scott Wilcox
I have made this argument for years, that the burden of proof is on those who
claim 'macro evolution' or 'macro speciation'. Our observations &
experiments do not provide it, nor does the infamous talk.origin faq.
Instead, ridicule & strong assertions are all that are offered.
To me, one of the biggest problems evolutionists have is to show how more
'variability' can even occur. When we breed & limit variability of certain
plant or animal species, they become less variable, not continuing to
increase in variability. How can new traits come about? It is easy to show
if they are already present, which is how species adapt, with traits already
present in the species, such as colors of moths, etc. But how & where do
these wholesale changes from extremely complex features like feathers or eyes
come from?
There are many other problems, but just this one seems enough to cast some
doubt on the validity of this 'theory' that is widely assumed to be proven
fact.
Scott Wilcox
Sedona, Arizona, USA
Shane D. Killian
"David P. Johnson" <joh...@ae.msstate.edu> wrote:
> In article <7pp3lc$ck6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
> <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
> > I've been asking this question of Creationists for years, and have
> > yet to receive an answer. Why is this so difficult? If you
> > disbelieve macroevolution, then there must be some mechanism
> > accumulating into large ones. Inches from becoming feet. Feet from
> > becoming yards. Yards from becoming miles.
> >
> > This is a very fair question about the cornerstone of creationism.
> > So stop shirking and answer the question!!!
>
> It is an interesting question in an academic sense. But as an argument
> against creationists it is a stupid one.
>
when you can't even get them to tell you what it *is*???
> (I don't know why they don't do this, perhaps because they're idiots,
> but) creationists need only note (correctly) that there does indeed
> seem to be such a "species boundary" beyond which evolution does not
> occur.
>
Incorrect. Science doesn't deal in blind assertion. There must be a
proposed mechanism.
> This has been shown in experiment after experiment, in fruit flies,
>
With the fruit flies, they wouldn't even be considered *insects*
anymore. Seems to me that the fruit flies is the *perfect* example of
speciation and above!
> in bacteria, it has been observed in the fossil record.
>
There are many such examples in the fossil record. The creationists can
only rebut Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, which the scientists revealed
to be a hoax long ago.
> Even the famous peppered moth study provides absolutely no evidence to
> the contrary.
>
The peppered moth was never *intended* to be an example of speciation.
It's an example of natural selection.
> The burden of proof instead lies with the evolutionists to show that
> in fact speciation _can_ occur. This has never been demonstrated.
>
*WRONG*. It has been demonstrated many times, reproduced int he lab, and
the fossil record has mountains of evidence for it.
It's all at www.talkorigins.org with references to the primary
scientific materials.
> But you can't peg that on creationists.
>
The creationists are making the claim that microevolution can happen but
macro can't. But the *same* mechanisms responseible for microevolution
are responseible for macroevolution--you just have more of them spread
out over a long period of time.
In order for microevolution to be true but not macroevolution, there
needs to be a mechanism to prevent it. *THAT* is why the creationists
must answer for this.
Get it now?
[some rehashing of standard creationist lies excsied]
> So here's my challenge to evolutionists, stated again because you have
> probably forgotten it by now:
>
> It has been shown that nature indeed makes regular, and sometimes very
> large jumps. Explain scientifically what is the mechanism which can
> permit gross morphological variation within one, or a very few,
> generation(s).
>
Since we have never *onserved* such a jump within a single generation,
we don't need to postulate a mechanism for it. Even punctuated
equilibrium takes dozens of generations.
> I have never met an evolutionist that could give me an answer to that
> one.
>
Why should they? Evolution doesn't postulate such a thing!
> > This has *NOTHING* to do with evolution. Evolution haz zilch to do
> > with the *start* of life, merely the *development* of life after it
> > began, however it began.
>
> This statement is either made in ignorance, or is intentionally
> disingenuous.
>
No, it isn't. It's the scientific definition. Why must the creationists
constantly lie about this?
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
Shane D. Killian
wil...@sedona.net wrote:
> Thanks for the article, David.
>
> I have made this argument for years, that the burden of proof is on
> those who claim 'macro evolution' or 'macro speciation'.
>
Since the creationists accept "micro-"evolution but not "macro-," they
must postulate some mechanism preventing the minor changes (micro-
evolution) from accumulating into big ones (macro-evolution).
The fact that they continually evade this, their scientific
responsibility, speaks volumes about their integrity (or lack thereof).
> To me, one of the biggest problems evolutionists have is to show how
> more 'variability' can even occur. When we breed & limit variability
> of certain plant or animal species, they become less variable, not
> continuing to increase in variability. How can new traits come about?
>
Oh, come on! First year Biology students do this!
Here's the experiment:
1) Take a single bacterium and sequence the genome
2) Grow a culture
3) Test for lack of antibiotic resistance by killing off most of the
culture (this confirms what the gene for antibiotic resistance is
not already present)
4) Grow a huge culture over a large amount of time
5) Subject the new culture to the same dose of antibiotics (note: not
all the bacteria will be killed off)
6) sequence the new genome and identify the mutation that gave the
bacteria the resistance
A *completely* new feature--antibiotic resistance--that was *NOT* there
before!
> There are many other problems, but just this one seems enough to cast
> some doubt on the validity of this 'theory' that is widely assumed to
> be proven fact.
>
Ha! You don't even know what "fact" and "theory" mean! Fact does *not*
mean "proven theory" and theory does *not* mean "guess."
Why don't you creationists go *learn* some science before you go and
make yourself look foolish trying to rebut it?
Scott Davidson
Wrong. Speciation has been observered in the laboratory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I trust your statement is made out if ignorance, and is not a lie.
>
>Darwin stated "natura non facit saltum," or nature does not make jumps.
>This is the very essence of gradualism; it is the foundation on which
>evolutionary theory is built. Darwin noted that there were large gaps
>in the fossil record, and that gradualism was not supported by the
>evidence during his lifetime. But, as a good scientist, he made a bold
>prediction. Namely that as more fossils were collected, the "gaps"
>would be filled by gradual transition from one morphological group to
>another. In fact, he stated that if it turned out not to be the case,
>his theory would prove useless.
>
Of course many transitional fossils have been found since Darwin's day.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>This prediction has now been shown to be wrong. Even though our
>documentation of the fossil record is immensely more complete now,
>there is simply no evidence of gradualism (with the possible single
>exception of archeopterix). Species appear of a sudden, fully
>developed, with no ancestors, persist relatively unchanged for millions
>of years, and then often suffer sudden extinction. This flies in the
>very face of gradualism, and has required that adjuncts to the theory
>of evolution be proposed in order to avoid abandoning it altogether.
>
>This is precisely why people like Steven J. Gould have proposed
>additions to the theory such as so-called punctuated equilibrium (read
>"then a miracle occurs"), which are intneded to allow the general
>proposals of Darwin to remain in the face of contradictory evidence.
>One of the problems with punctuated equilibrium is that it is subject
>to the same line of questioning that Mr. Williamson uses. Explain
>scientifically what is the mechanism which can permit gross
>morphological variation within one, or a very few, generation(s). The
>difference here, of course, is that now it is indeed a fair question.
>
Nothing in punctuated equillibrium claims that evolution occurs
in one or two generations. Evolution is fast relative to geologic
time (10,000 years) but relatively slow compared to biological time.
"PE is not a saltational theory of evolution" - from the PE FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
>Another problem with the elasticizing of evolution through exceptional
>proposals such as punctuated equilibrium is that it relies on circular
>reasoning. It starts out with the assumption that evolution is "true."
>It then notes that there are data that do not fit the theory as
>currently proposed. It declares that since evolution is true, then
>there must be a mechanism by which it could have produced the data in
>the first place. It then engages in pure speculation about how the data
>could actually be explained. And finally, with the modified prop in
>place, it claims that the seemingly "troublesome" data actually
>_confirm_ the theory in the end.
>
>This is not science. It is creative writing. It is historical
>speculation. The bacteriological experiments in microevolution are
>science. The experiments on fruit flies are science. The peppered moth
>study is science. All of these studies analyze observable data. They
>have error bars, and standards of repeatability. Where science ends and
>dreamland starts is when people assert that since microevolution within
>a species has been observed to exist, that all life that we currently
>observe evolved from a common single-cell ancestor that occurred from
>random chemical combinations in some organic primordial soup. That
>extrapolates well beyond the error bars of observed fact, and strains
>credibility beyond imagination. It is, in fact, the birth of a new
>creation myth.
Nonsense. Coming up with new theories that meet the facts is how science works.
Ignoring or distorting facts so as not to challenge beliefs is how creationism
works.
>
>So here's my challenge to evolutionists, stated again because you have
>probably forgotten it by now:
>
>It has been shown that nature indeed makes regular, and sometimes very
>large jumps. Explain scientifically what is the mechanism which can
>permit gross morphological variation within one, or a very few,
>generation(s).
>
>I have never met an evolutionist that could give me an answer to that
>one.
>
Because it is a strawman and simply reflects your lack of understanding.
Of course, you have still not answered the question, have you?
>In article <7q65o3$ir5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
><sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
>> This has *NOTHING* to do with evolution. Evolution haz zilch to do with
>> the *start* of life, merely the *development* of life after it began,
>> however it began.
>
>This statement is either made in ignorance, or is intentionally
>disingenuous. Darwin's "natura non facit saltum" states that even life
>itself must have occurred from a gradual development of chemical
>synthesis driven by chance and natural selection. It _is_ a creation
>myth, just like belief in a god is. Myth because there is no way to
>verify if it actually occurred. It is simply assumed that it must have
>occurred because we can't rely on a(n embarrassingly supernatural) god
>to explain our existence, now can we.
>
If we can "create" life in the laboratory, by a means that could have
occured in the primitive Earth, we have not proven that this is the way it DID
occur, but that this is the way it could have occured, and that no supernatural
"spark of life" is required.
>One final note. Since we have begun to appreciate the vast (vast)
>complexity of even single-celled life forms, and the extremely high
>level of improbability of them having developed at random, almost
>immediately after liquid water appeared on the earth, other theories
>have had to be proposed, such a so-called transpermia (or, the space
>aliens theory). This is the suggestion that simple life forms were
>somehow (miraculously) transported to earth intact from (somewhere
>else). Yikes! That's science fiction, and is just as embarrassing as
>having to rely on a (creator).
>
You are full of ignorance, aren't you? Single cell life forms, especially those
existing today, are the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
They did not come into existence at random.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org for some education.
>--
>David
>->(Signature continues here)
Scott #1045
Scott Davidson
>Thanks for the article, David.
>
>I have made this argument for years, that the burden of proof is on those who
>claim 'macro evolution' or 'macro speciation'. Our observations &
>experiments do not provide it, nor does the infamous talk.origin faq.
>Instead, ridicule & strong assertions are all that are offered.
I'd love to see references disproving observed instances of speciation.
Once there is divergence so that there is no interbreeding between
species (which is the definition of species, of course) what is
preventing further divergence. The closest thing I have seen to
this is people saying "but it is still a fruitfly" thereby showing a lack
of understanding of what a species is.
>
>To me, one of the biggest problems evolutionists have is to show how more
>'variability' can even occur. When we breed & limit variability of certain
>plant or animal species, they become less variable, not continuing to
>increase in variability. How can new traits come about? It is easy to show
>if they are already present, which is how species adapt, with traits already
>present in the species, such as colors of moths, etc. But how & where do
>these wholesale changes from extremely complex features like feathers or eyes
>come from?
You are aware that for some bacteria, it has been proven that these "traits
already present" do not exist, aren't you? If you claim they do exist, you must
show where they are hiding. Mutation explains the existence of new traits quite
well, thank you.
>
>There are many other problems, but just this one seems enough to cast some
>doubt on the validity of this 'theory' that is widely assumed to be proven
>fact.
>
I do hope you have something new for once.
Scott #1045
>Scott Wilcox
>Sedona, Arizona, USA
>
>"David P. Johnson" wrote:
>
><snip >
Scott Wilcox
> In article DDF0...@sedona.net, Scott Wilcox <wil...@sedona.net> writes:
> >Thanks for the article, David.
> >
> >I have made this argument for years, that the burden of proof is on those who
> >claim 'macro evolution' or 'macro speciation'. Our observations &
> >experiments do not provide it, nor does the infamous talk.origin faq.
> >Instead, ridicule & strong assertions are all that are offered.
>
> I'd love to see references disproving observed instances of speciation.
> Once there is divergence so that there is no interbreeding between
> species (which is the definition of species, of course) what is
> preventing further divergence. The closest thing I have seen to
> this is people saying "but it is still a fruitfly" thereby showing a lack
> of understanding of what a species is.
Hi Scott.
To me, the vague definitions of 'species' is not enough to hide the problems with
the theory. I carefully examined the t.o. faq over a year ago on this topic, along
with lengthy discussion/debate over speciation. The entire argument for speciation
relies on a strain or variety of a species becoming reproductively isolated (in the
t.o.faq, it was the fruitfly), thus, by definition, becoming a *new* species. I
have argued that just because something (like the fruitflies) becomes reproductively
isolated from 'sister' strains should not make us redefine that strain as a
completely new species. IOW, i think it is the *definition* which proves
speciation, not any observed real changes or movement into a completely new
biological species. It is circular reasoning, not a compelling fact.
>
> >To me, one of the biggest problems evolutionists have is to show how more
> >'variability' can even occur. When we breed & limit variability of certain
> >plant or animal species, they become less variable, not continuing to
> >increase in variability. How can new traits come about? It is easy to show
> >if they are already present, which is how species adapt, with traits already
> >present in the species, such as colors of moths, etc. But how & where do
> >these wholesale changes from extremely complex features like feathers or eyes
> >come from?
>
> You are aware that for some bacteria, it has been proven that these "traits
> already present" do not exist, aren't you? If you claim they do exist, you must
> show where they are hiding. Mutation explains the existence of new traits quite
> well, thank you.
Yes, for bacteria. But bacteria are unique. Mutations do not explain new traits
for other species. When a species becomes isolated, *less* variability occurs, not
more. The genetic limits of the dna become observable. What mechanism overcomes
this? Many reputable scientists are very critical of 'mutations.' The hopeful
monster & punctuated equilibrium are not widely accepted.
>
> >There are many other problems, but just this one seems enough to cast some
> >doubt on the validity of this 'theory' that is widely assumed to be proven
> >fact.
> >
>
> I do hope you have something new for once.
> Scott #1045
I don't recollect us having discussed this issue, Scott. My arguments are not new,
but i think they are valid. Here are some quotes (by evolutionists, btw) that may
by new to you. If not, just examine the content to see if it rings true.
"Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about
evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are
the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore
all living beings evolve.
This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is
neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the
facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of
evolution.
We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary
effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the
worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human
species provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the eyes, the
shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture of the hair, the
pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within every population, from
bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the
essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with
evolution."
Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past President, French Acadamie des
Sciences) in "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.
88.
"The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no
laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient
facts." ....
"We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been
very helpful."
Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D. (physical chemistry) (Professor, California Institute
of Technology), "Chemical evolution and the origin of life". "Scientific American",
vol. 239(3), September 1978, pp. 77 and 78.
--
David P. Johnson
<scot...@Eng.nospam.COM> wrote:
> In article joh...@ae.msstate.edu, "David P. Johnson"
> <The burden of proof
> >instead lies with the evolutionists to show that in fact speciation
> >_can_ occur. This has never been demonstrated. Ever. Why? No one knows.
> >But you can't peg that on creationists.
>
> Wrong. Speciation has been observered in the laboratory.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> I trust your statement is made out if ignorance, and is not a lie.
Forgive me. Speciation, as you define it, has occurred. But I still
fail to see (even on your FAQ) situations where significant
morphological change has occurred. I.e. rats becoming bats, and hippos
becoming whales. One sort if geranium becoming another sort of
geranium, ok. A new species.
If your answer is that it takes vast amounts of time to observe such
significant changes, then I say that doesn't change the fact that they
haven't been observed. Or have they?
> Nothing in punctuated equillibrium claims that evolution occurs
> in one or two generations. Evolution is fast relative to geologic
> time (10,000 years) but relatively slow compared to biological time.
> "PE is not a saltational theory of evolution" - from the PE FAQ.
But punctuated equilibrium postulates that the rate of evolutionary
changes varies. Sometimes it is relatively slow, and other times, it is
relatively very fast. I still don't understand why this would be so,
and it does indeed look like saltation to me.
> You are full of ignorance, aren't you? Single cell life forms, especially those
> existing today, are the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
> They did not come into existence at random.
Yes, I'm afraid I am full of ignorance. But, if single cell life forms
are the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, then why
did they show up in the fossil record a few million years after the
appearance of liquid water on the planet?
I am not trying to be obtuse, or spread ignorance. But there are
several aspects of evolution that I just cannot fathom. For instance,
the sheer statisitical improbability of DNA evolving. And then cells.
And so quickly.
I cannot see any reasonable route of gradual beneficial change that
would lead from some small mammal to a bat. The elongation and
rearrangement of bone structures in the arm and hand. The webbing of
the fingers. The wing needed to be fully developed before it would
become useful. A partially developed wing would be useless for
anything, and disadvantageous.
And then consider that flight developed in three completely different
parallel paths. Bats, birds, and insects. I recognize that this is a
standard argument, but I find it compelling. And the
land-mammal-to-whale sequence is joke.
My questions about evolution stem from a desire for reasonable
explanation. I have no ideological or theological problem with
evolution per se.
In article <7qfdv5$nru$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Shane D. Killian
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> > To me, one of the biggest problems evolutionists have is to show how
> > more 'variability' can even occur. When we breed & limit variability
> > of certain plant or animal species, they become less variable, not
> > continuing to increase in variability. How can new traits come about?
> >
> Oh, come on! First year Biology students do this!
>
> Here's the experiment:
>
> 1) Take a single bacterium and sequence the genome
> 2) Grow a culture
> 3) Test for lack of antibiotic resistance by killing off most of the
> culture (this confirms what the gene for antibiotic resistance is
> not already present)
> 4) Grow a huge culture over a large amount of time
> 5) Subject the new culture to the same dose of antibiotics (note: not
> all the bacteria will be killed off)
> 6) sequence the new genome and identify the mutation that gave the
> bacteria the resistance
>
> A *completely* new feature--antibiotic resistance--that was *NOT* there
> before!
Oops. This is not true. If resistance to antibiotics had not been
present in the first culture, then all of the bacteria would have died.
The fact that a small fraction of individuals survived denotes that the
trait was indeed present beforehand. If you use these survivors to grow
your subsequent cultures, then of course their resistance to
antibiotics will be passed on. This is like the peppered moth study.
Al Klein
<slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
> If the entrance of matter into space requires a source
Matter is currently being created all the time, so either creation of
matter doesn't require a creator, or god (whatever definition we use)
is currently creating new matter.
Scott Davidson
>In article <7qf6o6$ss1$1...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, Scott Davidson
><scot...@Eng.nospam.COM> wrote:
>
>> In article joh...@ae.msstate.edu, "David P. Johnson"
>> <The burden of proof
>> >instead lies with the evolutionists to show that in fact speciation
>> >_can_ occur. This has never been demonstrated. Ever. Why? No one knows.
>> >But you can't peg that on creationists.
>>
>> Wrong. Speciation has been observered in the laboratory.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>>
>> I trust your statement is made out if ignorance, and is not a lie.
>
>Forgive me. Speciation, as you define it, has occurred. But I still
>fail to see (even on your FAQ) situations where significant
>morphological change has occurred. I.e. rats becoming bats, and hippos
>becoming whales. One sort if geranium becoming another sort of
>geranium, ok. A new species.
>
Richard Dawkins is especially vehement that no such "hopeful monster" change
is likely to happen.
I apologize for my vehemence, but seeing people say "speciation has never
been observed" drives me nuts.
But
>If your answer is that it takes vast amounts of time to observe such
>significant changes, then I say that doesn't change the fact that they
>haven't been observed. Or have they?
>
It means that we are unlikely to see the fine details of the accelerated
change between significantly different species. Some people speculate that
this kind of change occurs in geographically separated populations, which
further reduces the chance that the detailed changes will be seen - both
because the smaller population that might get fossilized, and because
it is possible that the isolated population are not living in a region where
fossilization events are likely to happen.
>> Nothing in punctuated equillibrium claims that evolution occurs
>> in one or two generations. Evolution is fast relative to geologic
>> time (10,000 years) but relatively slow compared to biological time.
>> "PE is not a saltational theory of evolution" - from the PE FAQ.
>
>But punctuated equilibrium postulates that the rate of evolutionary
>changes varies. Sometimes it is relatively slow, and other times, it is
>relatively very fast. I still don't understand why this would be so,
>and it does indeed look like saltation to me.
>
This reminds me of a Justin Wilson joke. There was a little Cajun boy who
never spoke. His parents were terribly worried and brought him to the doctor,
but the doctor couldn't find anything wrong. So, they lived with it. Finally
when the boy was just five, at breakfast,
he opened his mouth and said "this toast is burned like the devil, I guarantee!"
Well his parents did a handsprung, and right there.
His papa said "how come you never say anything before, eh?"
The boy said, "Because up to now, everything was okay."
When everything is okay, why should a species change much? When conditions
change, or it moves to a new environment, then change is likely,
I understand that there is a debate whether there is some regulation
of the mutation rate, but I am not qualified to have an opinion on this.
>> You are full of ignorance, aren't you? Single cell life forms, especially those
>> existing today, are the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
>> They did not come into existence at random.
>
>Yes, I'm afraid I am full of ignorance. But, if single cell life forms
>are the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, then why
>did they show up in the fossil record a few million years after the
>appearance of liquid water on the planet?
>
>I am not trying to be obtuse, or spread ignorance. But there are
>several aspects of evolution that I just cannot fathom. For instance,
>the sheer statisitical improbability of DNA evolving. And then cells.
>And so quickly.
Reference, please? I was not aware that there was any evidence of any
life so soon after the appearance of liquid water. I know that there
has just been a discovery pushing backwards the first evidence of life,
but not to that point. This might be my ignorance talking, of course.
The "it is so improbable that a complex cell be formed out of chemicals"
argument also drives me nuts. If you were not saying this, I apologize.
>
>I cannot see any reasonable route of gradual beneficial change that
>would lead from some small mammal to a bat. The elongation and
>rearrangement of bone structures in the arm and hand. The webbing of
>the fingers. The wing needed to be fully developed before it would
>become useful. A partially developed wing would be useless for
>anything, and disadvantageous.
>
You've never seen a "flying" squirrel? (No, not Rocky :) )
>And then consider that flight developed in three completely different
>parallel paths. Bats, birds, and insects. I recognize that this is a
>standard argument, but I find it compelling. And the
>land-mammal-to-whale sequence is joke.
Why? I visited some elephant seals around here two years back, and
they look like a transitional form to me. They are so ungainly
on land, and so limited in the land where they go, that it does not
seem at all unlikely that with a few minor changes in mating habits that
they could move into the water permanently.
>
>My questions about evolution stem from a desire for reasonable
>explanation. I have no ideological or theological problem with
>evolution per se.
>
What do you define as a reasonable explanation? A "movie" with each
change clearly delineated? If so, you'll never get it (unless we get
incredibly lucky.) Or a plausible sequence of changes, backed up
by an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of genetics and
natural selection.
The fact that genetics, undreamed of in Darwin's time, explains the
mechanisms so well seems to me to be powerful support. Sure, new
evidence could change things. I learned Earth Science before Continental
Drift, and I learned it wrong. But I learned according to the best evidence
available at the time. So, the question is, what fits best, not what
is perfect. Or perhaps you mean something by reasonable I don't
see.
Scott #1045
-
Craig
wrote:
snip
>There are many such examples in the fossil record. The creationists can
>only rebut Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, which the scientists revealed
>to be a hoax long ago.
Oh, how you lie, oh deceitful one.
Now let's see. We have Heidelberg Man, Peking Man (here the evidence
"disappeared", an outright fraud)
Then, let's see. There was Neanderthal Man 1958 (Oops, that was just
an old man suffering from arthritis.
Oh, don't forget this oldie but goodie
Java Man 1922 with teeth of an orangutan.
Sorry Shane. You evolutionist are a deceitful bunch and NOT to be
trusted.
Try again, buddy boy, only this time try to tell the truth.
Bye
Craig
snip
>
David P. Johnson
<scot...@Eng.nospam.COM> wrote:
> >If your answer is that it takes vast amounts of time to observe such
> >significant changes, then I say that doesn't change the fact that they
> >haven't been observed. Or have they?
> >
> It means that we are unlikely to see the fine details of the accelerated
> change between significantly different species. Some people speculate that
> this kind of change occurs in geographically separated populations, which
> further reduces the chance that the detailed changes will be seen - both
> because the smaller population that might get fossilized, and because
> it is possible that the isolated population are not living in a region where
> fossilization events are likely to happen.
But see? That is one of my points. If it takes so long that we may
never observe it happening, then it is unverifyable. So no one knows
for sure if random mutations and natural selection (or sexual
selection, or some other non-artificial selection process) are even
_capable_ of providing all the diversity of life we observe.
The argument seems to go that since genetic mutations and natrual
selection has been observed to produce changes in biological systems,
that it _must_ be the only mechanism by which life developed. This line
of reasoning would not hold up in a freshman logic class. It reduces
to:
If A causes B
Then only A can cause B
The standard scientific reply is "Then what other mechanism (C?) would
you propose?"
But it is a fallacy to assert that just because C cannot be identified
immediately it must not exist.
Now, I will admit right now that I am a theist. But I do _not_ hold to
theistic orthodoxy in many (most?) regards. I am not a young earth
creationist, for example, as they are all goofballs. I do not see the
need to rely on a supernatural god that makes and then breaks the laws
of nature on a whim.
But, I know that there is a god, as well as I know anything. If you ask
me how I know, I will ask you how you know anything. Which reminds _me_
of a joke.
Descartes walkes into a cafe, and the waiter says Ah, monsieur. Your
usual? Descartes pauses for a monent, and says I think not. Whereupon
he suddenly dissapears.
Anyway..
Someone once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from a miracle. Could there not exist a being who has
learned perfectly (or at least very well) how to manipulate nature?
Could this being not have populated a planet (letting natrual selection
do its thing afterwards)? Created a galaxy? A universe? There is no
scientific evidence to controvert this postulate.
However, there is, I claim, another way (besides scientific
observation) to learn fact. I claim to have used this other route to
arrive at a knowledge of this being who we all call god, but who none
of us understands.
Science can only remain silent about this being. In fact, if science
steps in and denounces such a being, it has overstepped its bounds.
Like this:
A has never been scientifically observed
Therefore A does not exist.
Again the failing grade in logic.
Shane D. Killian
> >
> > Oh, come on! First year Biology students do this!
> >
> > Here's the experiment:
> >
> > 1) Take a single bacterium and sequence the genome
> > 2) Grow a culture
> > 3) Test for lack of antibiotic resistance by killing off most of the
> > culture (this confirms what the gene for antibiotic resistance is
> > not already present)
> > 4) Grow a huge culture over a large amount of time
> > 5) Subject the new culture to the same dose of antibiotics (note:
> > not all the bacteria will be killed off)
> > 6) sequence the new genome and identify the mutation that gave the
> > bacteria the resistance
> >
> > A *completely* new feature--antibiotic resistance--that was *NOT*
> > there before!
>
> Oops. This is not true. If resistance to antibiotics had not been
> present in the first culture, then all of the bacteria would have
> died.
>
attention?
> The fact that a small fraction of individuals survived denotes that
> the trait was indeed present beforehand.
>
Why? Because you say so? *ALL* of the first culture are killed off. The
first bacterium did *NOT* have an immunity to the antibiotic. Only after
massive amounts of reproduction for many, many generations did enough of
them end up with the mutation which protects them from the antibiotic.
> If you use these survivors to grow your subsequent cultures, then of
> course their resistance to antibiotics will be passed on.
>
And this is the *point*.
> This is like the peppered moth study.
>
It's not at all like the peppered moth. With the bacteria experiment,
you sequence the genetic structure and *identify* the mutation!
Dan Schaertel
me@localhost wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:02:21 -0700, Eric Christy
> <slid...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> > If the entrance of matter into space requires a source
>
> Matter is currently being created all the time, so either creation of
> matter doesn't require a creator, or god (whatever definition we use)
> is currently creating new matter.
What? Where? How?
Oh, do you mean those galaxies that are billions of light years away?
Rework your math.
Where is there matter being created right now? Prove it.
John Ings
wrote:
>Matter is currently being created all the time,
It is? Where?
David P. Johnson
<sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> (This is me, he snipped the reference):
> > >
> > > 1) Take a single bacterium and sequence the genome
> > > 2) Grow a culture
> > > 3) Test for lack of antibiotic resistance by killing off most of the
> > > culture (this confirms what the gene for antibiotic resistance is
> > > not already present)
> > > 4) Grow a huge culture over a large amount of time
> > > 5) Subject the new culture to the same dose of antibiotics (note:
> > > not all the bacteria will be killed off)
> > > 6) sequence the new genome and identify the mutation that gave the
> > > bacteria the resistance
> > >
> > > A *completely* new feature--antibiotic resistance--that was *NOT*
> > > there before!
> >
> > Oops. This is not true. If resistance to antibiotics had not been
> > present in the first culture, then all of the bacteria would have
> > died.
> >
> All of the bacteria *do* die in the first culture! Weren't you paying
> attention?
Uh.. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention when I read item 3. But now I
am. It does say "most," not "all," doesn't it?
Perhaps you should pay attention.
By the way, What's the difference in result between items 3 and 5?
Shane D. Killian
> Now let's see. We have Heidelberg Man, Peking Man (here the evidence
> "disappeared", an outright fraud)
>
The only fraud here is you claiming that this means anything. We have
many, *MANY* other examples of australopithecus other than Peking Man,
which was lost during WWII.
> Then, let's see. There was Neanderthal Man 1958 (Oops, that was just
> an old man suffering from arthritis.
>
Urban legend. There are many, *MANY* examples of Neanderthals, and they
*AREN'T* "old men with arthritis."
> Java Man 1922 with teeth of an orangutan.
>
Many, many examples of Java Man, too, *WITHOUT* orangutan teeth. Gonna
have to ask you for a source on this one.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98