Some Questions for Fundamentalists
dave haas
Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
the egg.
As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
Some questions:
Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
children have 3/4 of a soul?
Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
explanation for how species come about?
How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
D. Haas
Timothy F. Mulligan
somewhere and is living in a lab. If it *can* be done, scientists do it.
Although I don't want to speculate on the characteristics this creature would
possess, chances are that it's a Clinton supporter.
dave haas wrote:
[snip]
Timothy F. Mulligan
Andy Groves
dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
> the egg.
>
> As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
> close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
> hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
> it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>
> Some questions:
>
> Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
> If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
> children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> explanation for how species come about?
>
> How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
> how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
I would like to add 2 more:
Was Jesus haploid? (i.e., had 23 chromosomes, instead of 46)
If not, was Mary tetraploid?
--
Andy Groves
Adam Noel Harris
: I have a sinking suspicion that a chimp/human has already been produced
:somewhere and is living in a lab. If it *can* be done, scientists do it.
:Although I don't want to speculate on the characteristics this creature would
:possess, chances are that it's a Clinton supporter.
I think you've been watching too many bad movies.
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Adam Noel Harris
[snip comment and questions about interspecific hybrids]
:Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
I'm curious what _your_ answer to this question is, Dave.
Mark Folsom
>
>Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
>reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>the egg.
>
>As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>
I think it's been done, and they called the result a fundie! Maybe that's
what scares them so much about evolution talk: they're afraid of being found
out. It turns out they're way too fertile.
>Some questions:
>
>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
Only if it believed the bible was literally true.
>If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
>Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>explanation for how species come about?
>
There are no findings that will convince a fundie of anything. You seem to
forget that, by definition, they have to be able to fervently believe that a
self-contradictory story is *literally* true. Logic and evidence do not
penetrate such a beast.
>How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
They're the same "kind" ;-)
>Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
>Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
--
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer
http://www.redshift.com/~folsom
Jessica M. Wolfman
This reminds me. A while ago I read that some scientist somewhere had created a
goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
>Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
>reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>the egg.
>
>As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>
>Some questions:
>
>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
>If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
>Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>explanation for how species come about?
>
>How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
>Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
>Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
>
>D. Haas
>
Jessica Wolfman
"It's more fun to arrive at a conclusion
than to justify it."
--Macolm Forbes
The Adventurers Guild
http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
e.oupt
>
>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
Very interesting question.
I suspect that many non-Fundamentalist Christians already believe that animals have some
sort of 'souls' (despite their religion's official stance).
>
>If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
>Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>explanation for how species come about?
>
>How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
>Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
>Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
And,
Is 'Soylent Green' actually made from people?
Oppps! Sorry!
wrong Charlie Heston film!
Great post Dave.
Keep it up!
e.oupt
>
>D. Haas
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
> the egg.
>
> As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
> close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
> hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
> it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>
> Some questions:
>
I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a physical
being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to exist
in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
(incorrectly).
In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
>
> If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
> children have 3/4 of a soul?
No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
>
> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> explanation for how species come about?
No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
sink in the name of so called "science".
>
> How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
> how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
spiritual existance.
>
> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
Yup.
>
> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
>
> D. Haas
>
>
--
American Patriot
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dave haas
says...
>goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
>book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
>of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
I would imagine there are too many genetic differences between goats and
rabbits to get a viable embryo. The most you could probably do would be to
fuse embryonic cells and attempt to produce part goat and part rabbit.
This may have been done although I doubt it. If so such a creature would
not function very well in the real world. Kind of like some of the posters
in this NG. :-)
D. Haas
>>Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
>>reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>>separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>>lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>>been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>>Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>>from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>>the egg.
>>
>>As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>>close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>>hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>>it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>>
>>Some questions:
>>
>>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>>
>>If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>>children have 3/4 of a soul?
>>
>>Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>>explanation for how species come about?
>>
>>How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>>how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>>
>>Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>>
Herb Huston
<ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
}In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
} dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
}> explanation for how species come about?
}
What finding would persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
explanation for how species come about?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
video would be more convincing.
Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
simple to the complex?
Development of some new complex organ, observed?
Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
much touted hippis line will do).
No? I didn't think so.
Jessica M. Wolfman
>In article <366ddf16...@news.comm-plus.net>, wolf...@nospam.com
>says...
>>On 8 Dec 1998 15:53:30 -0500, dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
>>
>>
>>This reminds me. A while ago I read that some scientist somewhere had created a
>>goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
>>book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
>>of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
>
>
> I would imagine there are too many genetic differences between goats and
>rabbits to get a viable embryo. The most you could probably do would be to
>fuse embryonic cells and attempt to produce part goat and part rabbit.
>This may have been done although I doubt it. If so such a creature would
>not function very well in the real world. Kind of like some of the posters
>in this NG. :-)
That's pretty much what I thought, but I figured this'd be a chance to make
sure. (It *sounded* cool...)
>D. Haas
>
>
>
>>>Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
>>>reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>>>separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>>>lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>>>been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>>>Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>>>from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>>>the egg.
>>>
>>>As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>>>close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>>>hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>>>it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>>>
>>>Some questions:
>>>
>>>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>>>
>>>If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>>>children have 3/4 of a soul?
>>>
>>>Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>>>explanation for how species come about?
>>>
>>>How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>>>how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>>>
>>>Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>>>
>>>Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>>>
>
Jessica Wolfman
Adam Noel Harris
:This reminds me. A while ago I read that some scientist somewhere had created a
:goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
:book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
:of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
Well, I've seen an antelope-rabbit hybrid on television, so I guess it's
probably true! Come to think of it, one of the hosts of the show it was
on may have been a human-chimp hybrid, so that's two down.
Louann Miller
> > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
> I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a physical
> being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to exist
> in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
> will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
> (incorrectly).
>
> In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
(lines moved from later in your post for clarity, no change in content)
> Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> spiritual existance.
I think you'll find that this is against the main stream of Christian
thought throughout history -- the soul is generally supposed to be
exactly that part which people have and nonpeople don't. I also doubt
you'll find a Biblical reference to the souls of animals, though I'd
love to see a chapter and verse if you have one.
> > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > explanation for how species come about?
>
> No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
> sink in the name of so called "science".
As is my custom, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. The only
consistent advocate of chimp/human interbreeding we have around here is
Jabriol, who is a creationist. He was strangely taken with the idea for
a while, but he hasn't brought it up much lately and you are relatively
new so you may have missed it. Every time I've heard an actual scientist
asked that question, he or she has begun the answer by pointing out that
it would be unethical and only then discussing practicality.
> American Patriot
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
Tedd Hadley
<snip>
>Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
>spiritual existance.
I've never heard this before. What "branch" of Christianity do
you belong to, if you don't mind my asking? Also, what is your
Biblical support for this assertion?
Thomas Paine
>In article <74lo7b$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> In article <74lg05$lg6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> }In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
>> } dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
>> }> explanation for how species come about?
>> }
>>
>> What finding would persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> explanation for how species come about?
>>
>> -- Herb Huston
>> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>>
>>
>
>Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
>video would be more convincing.
Not likely....
But ... since god is, according to all religious people, still around ..
Finding proof of that should be a piece of cake.
>
>Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
>simple to the complex?
>Development of some new complex organ, observed?
>Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
>strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
>much touted hippis line will do).
>
>No? I didn't think so.
No, what?
You didn't read the evidence?
You were absent that day?
Your dog ate that page?
Your mind won't let reality in?
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
dave haas
>> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>> the egg.
>>
>> As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>> close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>> hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>> it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>>
>> Some questions:
>>
>
>I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a physical
>being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to exist
>in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
>will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
>(incorrectly).
Why aren't you on TV doing a mind reading act? You do know that you can
"prove" anything depending on your assumptions. It is said that if you
give a psychologists a rat and graph he can prove anything.
>In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
Now you assume the creature would be poor. I have a feeling if something
this unique was produced that the hybrid would have celebrity status with
more money and care than you will or I will ever have.
>>
>> If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>> children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
>No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
>
>>
>> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> explanation for how species come about?
>
>No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
>sink in the name of so called "science".
This is not science this is TECHNOLOGY. This is what you are using when
you drive your car and use your computer. All science does is discover new
knowledge and principles. Its the use of that knowledge that is
technology. Just remember the only things humans can do "better" that
their animal cousins is think and communicate. Would you have us go back
to the dark ages?
>>
>> How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>> how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
>Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
>spiritual existance.
Exactly what is my argument? The above was a question. If each species
was created special and separate then how do you explain fertile hybrids
between species? Is the species concept the best way to look at life on
earth?
>>
>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
>Yup.
>
>>
>> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
>I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
>
Apes are not monkeys. Is this supposed to be an insult? Are you an expert
at anything?
D. Haas
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <74lo7b$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
> > <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > }In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
> > } dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> > }> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > }> explanation for how species come about?
> > }
> >
> > What finding would persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > explanation for how species come about?
> >
> > -- Herb Huston
> > -- hus...@access.digex.net
> > -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
> >
> >
>
> Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
> video would be more convincing.
But you are willing to believe Genesis 1 (or Genesis 2) with no such
evidence? Why is that?
People have witnessed evolution. You need to change this requirement
to refer to common descent rather than evolution, or else explain why
the observed incidents of speciation are not evolution.
>
> Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
> simple to the complex?
Although moving from simple to complex is not a requirement of evolution,
you may have a problem with this one. But first you will have to define
complex. In making your definition, you should consider the nature
of fossils in older vs recent strata to prevent yourself from falling
into a trap.
> Development of some new complex organ, observed?
This one is safe. Evolution proceeds so slowly that it
is unlikely that this will be observed in progress.
(By the way, are you one of those people who believe that
it is possible that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a
common ancestor because all of their organs are the same?)
> Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
> strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
> much touted hippis line will do).
Each time a transitional is found two new gaps are created, so you are
safe in making this a requirement.
(Do you have a definition of "kind"?
No? I didn't think so.)
Once you construct a satisfactory definition of complex and
change the wording of your eyewitness requirement you
will have succeeded in demonstrating that you have a completely
closed mind.
>
> No? I didn't think so.
You have made a few requirements that you think cannot be met;
so, based on your knowledge, there is nothing that can convince you
that evolution is true. On the other hand, I can conceive of many
things that would convince me god exists.
>
> --
> American Patriot
--
Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
Rune Boersjoe
>:somewhere and is living in a lab. If it *can* be done, scientists do it.
>:Although I don't want to speculate on the characteristics this creature would
>:possess, chances are that it's a Clinton supporter.
>
>I think you've been watching too many bad movies.
Movies are rarely as absurd as reality.
--
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Rune Boersjoe
>>
>>Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>Only if it believed the bible was literally true.
Otherwise it would be a non-ethical ignorant heathen scumbag who
attempts to infringe on people's freedom of religion :-)
>There are no findings that will convince a fundie of anything. You seem to
>forget that, by definition, they have to be able to fervently believe that a
>self-contradictory story is *literally* true. Logic and evidence do not
>penetrate such a beast.
Exactly.
I've often asked them what they know that I don't. Apparently they
believe God has touched them and they have become 'enlightened'.
Scientists have proven that this type of experience can be related to
early alzheimers and indeed serious mental illness. Many actually HEAR
voices! It sure applies to a large portion of this bunch :-)
Rune Boersjoe
>goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
>book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
>of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
The mule? Hell even mulats are cross-breeds. Do fundies deny their
existance?
dave haas
>In article <74lo7b$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> In article <74lg05$lg6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> }In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
>> } dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
>> }> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> }> explanation for how species come about?
>> }
>> }No, [...]
>>
>> What finding would persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> explanation for how species come about?
>>
>> --
>> -- Herb Huston
>> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>>
>>
>
>Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
>video would be more convincing.
>
>simple to the complex?
>strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
>much touted hippis line will do).
>
>
Fossil evidence is pretty good considering the conditions necessary to
produce fossilized remains with good information. More so with lower
vascular plants than animals but the overwhelming evidence is in the areas
of genetics and molecular biology. The more we learn the more pieces fall
into place. Text books today, at least the Botany texts, use cladograms to
compare evolutionary relationships using morphological and molecular data.
Its surprising how often they agree.
D. Haas
Rune Boersjoe
>video would be more convincing.
>
>Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
>simple to the complex?
>Development of some new complex organ, observed?
>Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
>strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
>much touted hippis line will do).
>
>No? I didn't think so.
An eyewitness. You're a complete twit. You have no perception of
reality. You're living in a fantasy world. The shortcomings of science
do not allow to automatically attribute all things to god. Which
reminds me of that tribe found in the amazon a few years ago which
blindly believed that the pilots of an airplane were gods.
You and those amazonians are two of a kind, my friend.
--
"A lie is best hidden sandwiched between two truths."
Rune Boersjoe
>> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
>> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
>> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
>> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
>> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
>> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
>> the egg.
>>
>> As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
>> close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
>> hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
>> it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
>>
>>
>> Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
>being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to exist
>in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
>will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
>(incorrectly).
>
Poor creature? Because it's half chimp? I suppose it has drawbacks,
but I imagine there would also be upsides... like eating chinese food
with chopsticks using only your feet. We have no reason to believe
this chimp/human hybrid would somehow be lacking. Your expression of
faked sympathy only shows how low your tolerance for all things
different is.
>> If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
>> children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
>No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
With half a chimp brain and half a human? We don't know which genes
would take the centerstage. The result might be a being largely more
'perfect' than homo sapiens. We have no way of knowing.
>> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> explanation for how species come about?
>
>No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
>sink in the name of so called "science".
You're simply scared of things which are different from what you know,
which about the real world is probably very little. What was it Jesus
said about that?
>> How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
>> how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
>Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
>spiritual existance.
The fact that you can cross-breed two species at all, alone, makes the
evolutionist argument.
>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
>Yup.
Pull your head out of your ass and join the human race. You're either
blind, deaf or stupid.
>> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
>I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
Monkey is not a derogatory word. By utilizing the above sentence I can
easily claim that you believe in evolution and that the earth is not
just a few thousand years old, since you choose to view monkeys as
less advanced that humans.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Tedd Hadley <had...@du.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> <snip>
> >Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> >spiritual existance.
>
> you belong to, if you don't mind my asking? Also, what is your
> Biblical support for this assertion?
>
>
I am a member of no major denomination, so I guess that makes me part of the
trunk, rather than a branch.
:^)
Ecclesiastes mentioned the spirit(the actual correct word for the
non-physical being that exists beyond the physical death)and mentions it in
Eccl. 3:19 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even
one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all
is vanity." 20 "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
dust again." 21 "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the
spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
He is here questioning the ultimate destination of the spirt of man and beast
-
In numbers 22, the story of Balaam and his ass: The animal sees the angel (a
spiritual being) when Balaam cannot.
In revelation, Christ is to return at the battle of armegeddon along with ten
thousand of his saints, mounted on white horses. Where did they get the
horses, if animals do not have spirits which transcend death?
Remember the story of Christ casting out evil spirits - the group called
Legion. They requested that he cast them into the herd of pigs, which he did.
How did the pigs hold evil spirits if they are not capable of holding a spirit
at all?
Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
possibly do?
And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could that
be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
--
American Patriot
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
lou...@post.cis.smu.edu wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
> >
> > I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a
physical
> > being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to
exist
> > in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
> > will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
> > (incorrectly).
> >
> > In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
>
>
> > spiritual existance.
>
> thought throughout history -- the soul is generally supposed to be
> exactly that part which people have and nonpeople don't. I also doubt
> you'll find a Biblical reference to the souls of animals, though I'd
> love to see a chapter and verse if you have one.
I have now posted several which INFER this. Note especially the Ecclesiastes
quote, in which he seems to be pondering the DESTINATION of both the spirit of
a man, and the spirit of a beast. He does NOT say that man has a spirit and
the beast does not, but plainly he discusses the destination of each.
>
> > > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > > explanation for how species come about?
> >
> > No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people
will
> > sink in the name of so called "science".
>
> As is my custom, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. The only
> consistent advocate of chimp/human interbreeding we have around here is
> Jabriol, who is a creationist. He was strangely taken with the idea for
> a while, but he hasn't brought it up much lately and you are relatively
> new so you may have missed it. Every time I've heard an actual scientist
> asked that question, he or she has begun the answer by pointing out that
> it would be unethical and only then discussing practicality.
I agree that all public statements by scientists are thus. I would disagree
that there is no scientist that would try such a thing in secret, just to see
if they could do it.
Jabriol rings a bell, but darned if I can place him - -
The idea of crossing a human and animal is, I believe, bestiality, is it not?
Don't understand a Christian who could advocate such a thing. But then I
can't understand a Christian who advocates homosexuality either, and I am
quite aware that they exist -
>
> > American Patriot
>
> --
> Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
>
>
And I thank you, sir, for a disagreeing post that is also a REASONED post. It
is a pleasure; and, I might add, is as rare here as water in a desert.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> In article <74lg05$lg6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ttra...@my-dejanews.com
> >In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
> > dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> >>
> >> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
> >> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
> >> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
> >> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
> >> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
> >> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
> >> the egg.
> >>
> >> As far as Primates are concerned humans and chimpanzees are appear to be as
> >> close genetically as the above hybrids and it should be very easy to make a
> >> hybrid between the two species (if it already hasn't been done) In fact,
> >> it is thought that if such was the case the female should be fertile!
> >>
> >> Some questions:
> >>
> >
> >I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a
physical
> >being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to exist
> >in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the word, I
> >will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
> >(incorrectly).
>
> "prove" anything depending on your assumptions. It is said that if you
> give a psychologists a rat and graph he can prove anything.
This statement, in this context, makes no sense to me. What is who 'proving'
in the above?
>
> >In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
>
> Now you assume the creature would be poor. I have a feeling if something
> this unique was produced that the hybrid would have celebrity status with
> more money and care than you will or I will ever have.
Money, yes. With little appreciation for what it is. How about a family?
Love? Companionship? This creature would be less happy than the average
mullato in the early 60's south.
>
> >>
> >> If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
> >> children have 3/4 of a soul?
> >
> >No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
> >
> >>
> >> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> >> explanation for how species come about?
> >
> >No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
> >sink in the name of so called "science".
>
> This is not science this is TECHNOLOGY.
I will inform my geneticist friends that they are no longer scientists, but
technologists. They will be pleased.
> This is what you are using when
> you drive your car and use your computer.
I'm making hybrid monkeys when I use my computer?
Of course, there those that APPEAR to be monkeys at my snappy retorts, but -
- -
> All science does is discover new
> knowledge and principles. Its the use of that knowledge that is
> technology. Just remember the only things humans can do "better" that
> their animal cousins is think and communicate. Would you have us go back
> to the dark ages?
Never!
>
> >>
> >> How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
> >> how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
> >
> >Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> >spiritual existance.
>
> Exactly what is my argument?
Your argument was a supposed problem based upon man having a "soul" and
animals not having one.
> The above was a question. If each species
> was created special and separate then how do you explain fertile hybrids
> between species?
Species is a human concept, and is not used in scripture. Each "kind" was
created special and separate, and cannot, IMHO, crossbreed.
The fact that science (oops! Technology) can graft the head of a dog onto
the body of a pig does not mean that they have created some new "kind" of
creature, and it in no way contradicts the scripture.
> Is the species concept the best way to look at life on
> earth?
It helps; especially if you are looking for a date.
>
> >>
> >> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
> >
> >Yup.
> >
> >>
> >> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
> >
> >I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
> >
>
> Apes are not monkeys. Is this supposed to be an insult?
Actually, it was supposed to be funny.
> Are you an expert
> at anything?
Several things, actually. Apparently, though, not at judging the sense of
humor of Darwinists.
How about yourself? Are you an expert at anything, or just killing time here?
>
> D. Haas
sregoR .M divaD
Andy wrote:
>
> Sorry to interrupt. But I was following your discussion in here and saw
> this post.
>
> >I have now posted several which INFER this. Note especially the
> Ecclesiastes
> >quote, in which he seems to be pondering the DESTINATION of both the spirit
> of
> >a man, and the spirit of a beast. He does NOT say that man has a spirit
> and
> >the beast does not, but plainly he discusses the destination of each.
>
> Just what Ecclesiastes quote is this? Chapter and verse?
It looks like Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 (KJV)
18
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that
God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves
are beasts.
19
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
for all is vanity.
20
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again.
21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of
the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
22
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man
should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall
bring him to see what shall be after him?
--
The Young American
=============================
.
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
>simple to the complex?
where is this part of evolution? you got something besides a
creationist strawman?
>Development of some new complex organ, observed?
yeah. speciation has been observed. next
>Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
>strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
>much touted hippis line will do).
yeah. the evolution of whales. see s.j. gould 'dinosaur in a haystack'
for good info on the transitionals in whales
see also the november 19 issue of 'nature' for an article by pearson
on the 60 million yr evidence for the evolution of foraminifera
by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
event?
wf...@enter.netxx
>The idea of crossing a human and animal is, I believe, bestiality, is it not?
>Don't understand a Christian who could advocate such a thing. But then I
>can't understand a Christian who advocates homosexuality either, and I am
>quite aware that they exist -
yes. just like it took christians one thousand nine hundred years to
discover that slavery was wrong.
they'll come around on homosexuals too.
maff91
>Path: soap.news.pipex.net!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.stanford.edu!ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>From: ttra...@my-dejanews.com
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.philosophy,talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Some Questions for Fundamentalists
>Date: 9 Dec 1998 10:02:05 -0500
>Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>Lines: 39
>Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
>Message-ID: <74m3vp$5up$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>References: <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net> <74lg05$lg6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <74lo7b$g...@access1.digex.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
>X-Authentication-Warning: philabs-gw.philabs.research.philips.com: smap set sender to <ne...@dejanews.com> using -f
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 09 15:11:57 1998 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)
>X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x6.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 24.2.101.22
>Xref: soap.news.pipex.net alt.atheism:823490 alt.christnet:467999 alt.christnet.philosophy:76596 talk.origins:466615
>
>In article <74lo7b$g...@access1.digex.net>,
> hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>> In article <74lg05$lg6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> <ttra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> }In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
>> } dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
>> }> Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> }> explanation for how species come about?
>> }
>> }No, [...]
>>
>> What finding would persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
>> explanation for how species come about?
>>
>> --
>> -- Herb Huston
>> -- hus...@access.digex.net
>> -- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
>>
>>
>
>Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
>video would be more convincing.
>
>Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
>simple to the complex?
>Development of some new complex organ, observed?
>Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by the
>strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
>much touted hippis line will do).
>
>No? I didn't think so.
>
>--
>American Patriot
>
Are you a commie?
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
The only way you can get people to accept your fantasy is to institute
a theocratic dictatorship and to get all free enterprise nationalized.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
*******************************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
Hilary B Osborne
Rune Boersjoe (lo...@my.sig) wrote:
: >> Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
: >> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
: >> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
: >> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
: >> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes, and chickens and turkeys.
: >> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
: >> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
: >> the egg.
: >>
There have also been mouse-chick embryonic chimeras created; they would
not have lived far beyond this stage (they were destroyed). This is
even more significant than the quail-chick chimeras, as mice and chicks
aren't even in the same class. The possibility of producing viable
interspecies/interclass/etc hybrids was not a topic of this particular
study.
The quail-chick chimeras also died at the embryonic stage--despite the
implication above, these chimeras were *not* viable.
I don't have the reference for this on me, as I left it at home after
getting an A (or A-) on the paper I wrote on this last year for an
embryology class. If anyone cares, I can easily find the reference (and
yes, it was a peer-reviewed scientific journal).
-HiLary, #193, SP5
"I still think, in general, poking around strange statues in an
undiscovered pyramid tomb filled with traps is a bad idea."
-Riff
www.sluggy.com
Stix
>dave haas wrote:
>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>Yup.
LOL!
You know you're conversing with the equivalent of pond scum when someone
answers 'yes' to that question.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Mike Painter
Stix wrote in message <36724c18...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
But it allows for the powerful and moving "Nope", which remains within the
four letter word limit.
Thomas Paine
(snip)
>I agree that all public statements by scientists are thus. I would disagree
>that there is no scientist that would try such a thing in secret, just to see
>if they could do it.
>
>Jabriol rings a bell, but darned if I can place him - -
>
>The idea of crossing a human and animal is, I believe, bestiality, is it not?
No.
Sex with an animal is bestiality.
Cross breeding (in a test tube) is investigation ... moral or not is something
else.
>Don't understand a Christian who could advocate such a thing. But then I
>can't understand a Christian who advocates homosexuality either, and I am
>quite aware that they exist -
Hmmm... and I can't understand a chrisitan who constantly forgets "judge not
lest ye be judged", although they not only exist - but we appear to have one
right here.
>
>>
>> > American, homophobic, Patriot "True Christian"(TM)
>>
>> --
>> Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
>>
>>
>
>And I thank you, sir, for a disagreeing post that is also a REASONED post. It
>is a pleasure; and, I might add, is as rare here as water in a desert.
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
>In article <74mc7a$l...@du.ics.uci.edu>,
> Tedd Hadley <had...@du.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >spiritual existance.
>>
>> you belong to, if you don't mind my asking? Also, what is your
>> Biblical support for this assertion?
>>
>>
>
>I am a member of no major denomination, so I guess that makes me part of the
>trunk, rather than a branch.
No. I think I'd classify you futher out on the limb ... like ... a nut.
>
>:^)
>
>Ecclesiastes mentioned the spirit(the actual correct word for the
>non-physical being that exists beyond the physical death)and mentions it in
>Eccl. 3:19 "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even
>one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
>have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all
>is vanity." 20 "All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
>dust again." 21 "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the
>spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
>
>He is here questioning the ultimate destination of the spirt of man and beast
>-
>
>In numbers 22, the story of Balaam and his ass: The animal sees the angel (a
>spiritual being) when Balaam cannot.
>
>In revelation, Christ is to return at the battle of armegeddon along with ten
>thousand of his saints, mounted on white horses. Where did they get the
>horses, if animals do not have spirits which transcend death?
>
>Remember the story of Christ casting out evil spirits - the group called
>Legion. They requested that he cast them into the herd of pigs, which he did.
>How did the pigs hold evil spirits if they are not capable of holding a spirit
>at all?
>
>Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
>not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
>that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
>from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
Then why do many "christians" quote another part of the bible (genesis?) to
justify dominance over the animal kingdom?
>
>Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
>which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
>possibly do?
And why, if they do have a soul, does this not go against "Thou Shalt Not
Kill"?
>
>And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could that
>be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
Honus
>
> In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
> dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
> In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
> > If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
> > children have 3/4 of a soul?
> No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
Alright then, let's say that this poor creature (at last, we agree on
something) is allowed to mate with a chimp. The progeny of this union
mates with a chimp as well, and so on for say, 100 generations. So now
we have a chimp with a human ancestor way back in it's lineage. Does
this chimp have a soul? Why not? At what point did the lineage cease
having souls, (in this use of the word) and why?
> > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > explanation for how species come about?
>
> No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people will
> sink in the name of so called "science".
Just as there's no depth to which some people will sink in the name of
Jesus. People are people.
> > How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
> > how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
>
> Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> spiritual existance.
And your biblical evidence for this is? Please, no talking donkeys. ;)
> > Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>
> Yup.
Yeah.
> > Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>
> I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
Why are you so damned sure that you're correct when it comes to the deep
stuff that clearly goes right over your head, yet you can't handle
simple questions like is _The Planet of the Apes_ fiction or not? Here's
a hint...it's fiction, but as a parody of what happens when you put
religious zealots in charge of scientific endeavors it's right on the
money. Pierre Boulle was awesome! (I realize that was more than a hint,
but I'm in a helpful mood.) ;)
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
Darren Cooper
|Was Jesus haploid? (i.e., had 23 chromosomes, instead of 46)
|
|If not, was Mary tetraploid?
If Jesus was haploid, which sex chromosome did he have? X or Y?
If it was a Y he'd be inviable, if X he would be female. (Actually all
haploid and polyploid humans are inviable but I'm just using a rule
that applies to certain other animals).
/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-/|\-
_-_|\
/ \ Darren Cooper
\_.-._/<--Sydney, Australia
v
Email replies to this post are welcome -no spamblocks present.
Senders of Unsolicited Commercial Email will be forcefed
live maggots.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
lo...@my.sig (Rune Boersjoe) wrote:
> >Oh, maybe an eyewitness. Some polaroid shots would be nice, but digital
> >video would be more convincing.
> >
> >Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
> >simple to the complex?
> >Development of some new complex organ, observed?
> >Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by
the
> >strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
> >much touted hippis line will do).
> >
> >No? I didn't think so.
>
You are completely lacking in discernment of sarcasm.
> You have no perception of reality.
You have no perception of truth.
> You're living in a fantasy world.
You are living in a dying world.
> The shortcomings of science
> do not allow to automatically attribute all things to god.
Your disbelief in god does not force the supernatural to have a natural
explaination.
> Which
> reminds me of that tribe found in the amazon a few years ago which
> blindly believed that the pilots of an airplane were gods.
Are you possibly talking about the cargo cults that formed after WWII? Didn't
hear about any of them in the Amazon.
>
> You and those amazonians are two of a kind, my friend.
Those natives abandoned their cultural values and formed a religion based
upon their perception of science and technology. Which of us do they really
reflect?
And, believe it or not, I am indeed your friend.
> --
>
> "A lie is best hidden sandwiched between two truths."
>
> Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
>
>
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
lo...@my.sig (Rune Boersjoe) wrote:
<supersnip>
> >> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
> >
> >I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
>
> Monkey is not a derogatory word. By utilizing the above sentence I can
> easily claim that you believe in evolution and that the earth is not
> just a few thousand years old, since you choose to view monkeys as
> less advanced that humans.
So, you are saying that if I am not an evolutionist, I must value all life
equally? Therefore, if my child has a disease, I cannot treat it due to the
fact that I might kill some bacteria? This reasoning is indicative of the
quality I have grown to expect from Darwinists.
Boikat
>
> In article <366f5416...@news.jancomulti.com>,
> lo...@my.sig (Rune Boersjoe) wrote:
>
> <supersnip>
>
> > >> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
> > >
> > >I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
> >
> > Monkey is not a derogatory word. By utilizing the above sentence I can
> > easily claim that you believe in evolution and that the earth is not
> > just a few thousand years old, since you choose to view monkeys as
> > less advanced that humans.
>
> So, you are saying that if I am not an evolutionist, I must value all life
> equally? Therefore, if my child has a disease, I cannot treat it due to the
> fact that I might kill some bacteria? This reasoning is indicative of the
> quality I have grown to expect from Darwinists.
>
I nominate this as "The Most Asinine Post of the
Month."
Where does the previous post imply that line of
"reasoning"? It's sooooo off base that it's
amazing that anyone would make that sort of
connection, since evolution would require that the
bacteria be killed off in order that you child
could survive to reproduce.
But if your statement is indicative of how you
reason things out, then it's understandable why
you cannot grasp these fundamental nuances of
biological evolution.
Boikat
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
> >simple to the complex?
>
> creationist strawman?
If you choose to believe in something which you call 'evolution' which does
NOT move from the simple to the complex, I will have no argument with you.
My argument is with those who view the entire spectrum of life on this planet
to be a progression from single celled organisms in the beginning to
humankind today. This false belief is what I am talking about when I speak
against "evolution", and it is obviously a change from the simple to the
complex.
>
> >Development of some new complex organ, observed?
>
> yeah. speciation has been observed. next
Name the organ, please.
>
> >Fossil evidence, where each transitional form has been FOUND, and DATED by
the
> >strata it was actually FOUND in, which moves from one kind to another. (The
> >much touted hippis line will do).
>
> yeah. the evolution of whales. see s.j. gould 'dinosaur in a haystack'
> for good info on the transitionals in whales
Not at all complete, no steady progression EACH MEMBER of which is dated
according to its STRATA rather than the evolutionary NEED.
>
> see also the november 19 issue of 'nature' for an article by pearson
> on the 60 million yr evidence for the evolution of foraminifera
>
> by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
> event?
>
Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
"Mike Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> Stix wrote in message <36724c18...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >ttra...@my-dejanews.com posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> >>dave haas wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yup.
> >
> >
> >You know you're conversing with the equivalent of pond scum when someone
> >answers 'yes' to that question.
> >
> >
> >Stix
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> >"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
> But it allows for the powerful and moving "Nope", which remains within the
> four letter word limit.
>
>
'Nah' is a better fit - and it matches so well the melodic flow of 'yup'
It's simply this; this debate has gone on for long enough that you guys know
what I will say, and I know what you will say, etc., and every now and then,
rather than launch (again) a long winded explaination about a familiar topic
about which I have been posed a 'set-up' type question, I will just say -
Yup.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
> > dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
>
> > > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>
> > In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
>
> > > If said female was fertile and had offspring with a human male would the
> > > children have 3/4 of a soul?
>
> > No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
>
> Alright then, let's say that this poor creature (at last, we agree on
> something) is allowed to mate with a chimp. The progeny of this union
> mates with a chimp as well, and so on for say, 100 generations. So now
> we have a chimp with a human ancestor way back in it's lineage. Does
> this chimp have a soul? Why not? At what point did the lineage cease
> having souls, (in this use of the word) and why?
You haven't been following the thread, have you? My contention is that
animals ALL have 'souls' (actually, spirit). No amount of human/animal
experimentation would change this -
>
> > > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > > explanation for how species come about?
> >
> > No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people
will
> > sink in the name of so called "science".
>
> Just as there's no depth to which some people will sink in the name of
> Jesus. People are people.
Comparing the morality of each - I don't think Christ's followers come out too
bad, on average. You guys have all that humanist movement baggage - -
>
> > > How could you explain this in terms of special creation? For that matter
> > > how do you explain those species who have already been hybridized?
> >
> > Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> > spiritual existance.
>
> And your biblical evidence for this is? Please, no talking donkeys. ;)
There is nowhere where it is specifically stated that all animals have a
spirit. I have quoted the evidence in scripture which leads me to believe
that they do. There is certainly nowhere in scripture where it is stated
that only humans have a spirit, nor is there any place that denies that
animals do.
>
> > > Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
> >
> > Yup.
>
> Yeah.
Uh-huh.
Beginning to sound like King of the Hill, isn't it?
>
> > > Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
> >
> > I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
>
> Why are you so damned sure that you're correct when it comes to the deep
> stuff that clearly goes right over your head, yet you can't handle
> simple questions like is _The Planet of the Apes_ fiction or not? Here's
> a hint...it's fiction, but as a parody of what happens when you put
> religious zealots in charge of scientific endeavors it's right on the
> money. Pierre Boulle was awesome! (I realize that was more than a hint,
> but I'm in a helpful mood.) ;)
We must be talking about a different film. In the planet of the apes I saw,
the earth had been nearly destroyed, and mankind had lost his dominance of the
planet, due to weapons made possible by science and unleashed by a society
without the morality to control itself.
Of course it is fiction. I did not realize this question was asked seriously.
I constantly overestimate the intellect on TO.
>
> --
> "Science rules." "Death to spammers."
>
> -Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
>
> Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
> email.
>
>
Splifford
> In article <366EB3...@mail.smu.edu>,
> lou...@post.cis.smu.edu wrote:
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
> > >
> > > I assume here that you are using the term "soul" to be that part of a
> physical
> > > being which does NOT die when the physical being dies, but continues to
> exist
> > > in a spiritual condition. Although this is an incorrect use of the
word, I
> > > will answer your questions in this term which you seem to choose to use
> > > (incorrectly).
> > >
> > > In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
> >
> > (lines moved from later in your post for clarity, no change in content)
> >
> > > Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well as mankind, have a
> > > spiritual existance.
> >
> > I think you'll find that this is against the main stream of Christian
> > thought throughout history -- the soul is generally supposed to be
> > exactly that part which people have and nonpeople don't. I also doubt
> > you'll find a Biblical reference to the souls of animals, though I'd
> > love to see a chapter and verse if you have one.
>
> I have now posted several which INFER this. Note especially the Ecclesiastes
> quote, in which he seems to be pondering the DESTINATION of both the spirit of
> a man, and the spirit of a beast. He does NOT say that man has a spirit and
> the beast does not, but plainly he discusses the destination of each.
>
> >
> > > > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution is actually a valid
> > > > explanation for how species come about?
> > >
> > > No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to which some people
> will
> > > sink in the name of so called "science".
> >
> > As is my custom, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. The only
> > consistent advocate of chimp/human interbreeding we have around here is
> > Jabriol, who is a creationist. He was strangely taken with the idea for
> > a while, but he hasn't brought it up much lately and you are relatively
> > new so you may have missed it. Every time I've heard an actual scientist
> > asked that question, he or she has begun the answer by pointing out that
> > it would be unethical and only then discussing practicality.
Jabs has been pushing the Manpanzee crap en espanol lately.
>
> I agree that all public statements by scientists are thus. I would disagree
> that there is no scientist that would try such a thing in secret, just to see
> if they could do it.
>
> Jabriol rings a bell, but darned if I can place him - -
jab...@cris.com
jab...@concentric.net
He may also post under other names.
He's the guy who always wants to embarrass the JWs and his threads almost
always have alt.religion.jehovahs-witn xposted.
>
> The idea of crossing a human and animal is, I believe, bestiality, is it not?
> Don't understand a Christian who could advocate such a thing.
You'll have to have a chat with Jabs. He definately as a thing about hairy
women. Personally I'd like to see him try it, just to see how many pieces
Ms. Chimp tears him into. Chimps are a _lot_ stronger than humans.
But then I
> can't understand a Christian who advocates homosexuality either, and I am
> quite aware that they exist -
>
> >
> > > American Patriot
> >
> > --
> > Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
> >
> >
>
> And I thank you, sir, for a disagreeing post that is also a REASONED post. It
> is a pleasure; and, I might add, is as rare here as water in a desert.
>
> --
> American Patriot
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Dave Horn
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<74ofqj$6go$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <366F8A26...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
>> > dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:\
>> > > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
>>
>> > In this context, of course this poor creature would
>> > have a "soul".
>>
>> > > If said female was fertile and had offspring with a
>> > > human male would the children have 3/4 of a soul?
>>
>> > No, all would have 4/4 of a "soul".
>>
>> Alright then, let's say that this poor creature (at last, we
>> agree on something) is allowed to mate with a chimp. The
>> progeny of this union mates with a chimp as well, and so
>> on for say, 100 generations. So now we have a chimp with
>> a human ancestor way back in it's lineage. Does this
>> chimp have a soul? Why not? At what point did the lineage
>> cease having souls, (in this use of the word) and why?
>
>You haven't been following the thread, have you?
Why bother? It's a stupid thread.
>My contention is that animals ALL have 'souls' (actually, spirit).
>No amount of human/animal experimentation would change
>this -
And since you as much as admit that you don't have any evidence for this --
Biblical or otherwise -- it's hardly worth pursuing.
>> > > Would such a finding persuade you that evolution
>> > > is actually a valid explanation for how species come
>> > > about?
>> >
>> > No, but it would persuade me that there is no depth to
>> > which some people will sink in the name of so called
>> > "science".
Something you appear to know very little about...
>> Just as there's no depth to which some people will sink
>> in the name of Jesus. People are people.
>
>Comparing the morality of each - I don't think Christ's
>followers come out too bad, on average.
You should have stopped at "I don't think." We could do a poll and take
surveys, if you like -- it would take considerable research to start from
the present and go back to the time of Christ and determine what sorts of
atrocities have been committed in his name versus the sorts of atrocities
committed by followers of other religions. Then we can compare them to the
sorts of atrocities committed in the name of evolution, "secular humanism,"
or atheism.
>You guys have all that humanist movement
>baggage - -
Yeah...right...a "movement" with the aim of the betterment of man.
Wow...what a concept...
And that's assuming it's even really a legitimate movement as opposed to a
small group who wrote a couple of manifestos. I suspect that the average
"secular humanist" who spends his Sundays fishing has little regard for the
fundamentalist idea that he's part of some grand conspiracy.
>> > > How could you explain this in terms of special creation?
I noticed that this didn't get answered.
>> > > For that matter how do you explain those species who
>> > > have already been hybridized?
>> >
>> > Your entire argument is specious. All animals, as well
>> > as mankind, have a spiritual existance.
>>
>> And your biblical evidence for this is? Please, no talking
>> donkeys. ;)
>
>There is nowhere where it is specifically stated that all animals
>have a spirit.
In other words, you have no evidence.
>I have quoted the evidence in scripture which leads me to
>believe that they do.
"Leads me to believe" is not evidence.
>There is certainly nowhere in scripture where it is stated
>that only humans have a spirit, nor is there any place that
>denies that animals do.
There's no place in Scripture that says there *isn't* a planet called Kolob,
either. Does this mean it exists and the Mormons are right?
>> > > Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>> >
>> > Yup.
>>
>> Yeah.
>
>Uh-huh.
Wrong.
>Beginning to sound like King of the Hill, isn't it?
Which, it should be noted, was brought to us by the fellow who created
"Beavis and Butt-head." While both shows can be satirical and even funny, I
wouldn't rely on either as a shining example of intellectual argumentation.
>> > > Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>> >
>> > I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
>>
>> Why are you so damned sure that you're correct when it
>> comes to the deep stuff that clearly goes right over your
>> head, yet you can't handle simple questions like is _The
>> Planet of the Apes_ fiction or not? Here's a hint...it's fiction,
>> but as a parody of what happens when you put religious
>> zealots in charge of scientific endeavors it's right on the
>> money. Pierre Boulle was awesome! (I realize that was
>> more than a hint, but I'm in a helpful mood.) ;)
>
>We must be talking about a different film. In the planet of the
>apes I saw, the earth had been nearly destroyed, and mankind
>had lost his dominance of the planet, due to weapons made
>possible by science and unleashed by a society without the
>morality to control itself.
Actually, both concepts were addressed in both the book and (to a lesser
extent) the film.
>Of course it is fiction. I did not realize this question was
>asked seriously. I constantly overestimate the intellect on
>TO.
Who cares? I, for one, am not too impressed by you, either.
Elmer Bataitis
> My argument is with those who view the entire spectrum of life on this planet
> to be a progression from single celled organisms in the beginning to
> humankind today. This false belief is what I am talking about when I speak
> against "evolution", and it is obviously a change from the simple to the
> complex.
Really? Even naked proteins exist in nature, but don't last long. Virii
are in nature too, as are single celled life. You seem to think that
because a *small* portion of life is now complex implies that all life
is simple>complex. There are examples of complex>simple; simple>simple
and complex>complex.
> > >Development of some new complex organ, observed?
> > yeah. speciation has been observed. next
> Name the organ, please.
The whole animal or plant is so different from the parent that it
*cannot* reproduce with them. That is the definition of a *new* animal
or plant.
> When every attempt by man to replace God with a
> naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
As though mankind could actually do so. This "God" of yours must really
be a weak character. Mine's much stronger than yours is ;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
maff91
>>This reminds me. A while ago I read that some scientist somewhere had created a
>>goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or conspiracy
>>book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little list
>>of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
>
>The mule? Hell even mulats are cross-breeds. Do fundies deny their
>existance?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/mule.html
http://wehiz.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/metatax/metataxo.htm
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/animal_behavior/SPECIATE.HTM
http://www.bio.uva.nl/onderwijs/SEP245/glossary.html
http://www.depaul.edu/~gmichel/114sylr.htm
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Creacionismo científico: un dogma religioso que combina masiva
ignorancia con increible arrogancia.
Creacionista: (1) Una persona adepta al creacionismo. (2) Una
perosona con el mínimo nivel de inteligencia que aún le permite
hacer labores simples (3) Una persona que ni la grama sabe cortar.
(4) Un mentiroso o repartidor de mentiras (5) Una pesona que cree
fácilmente que lo que le cuentan es verdad.
jeremy howard todd
>>by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
>>event?
ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
>naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
When every -possible- attempt, present and future, to rationally
explain the universe has been discounted (and I disagree that many have
been), I would agree with you. We're learning more and more about the
universe every year; why do you insist your explanation is correct even
despite your self-admitted total lack of evidence and with more data
coming in every day?
-jht
--
Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
========================================================= // \\
"M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
jeremy howard todd
>Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
>not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
>that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
>from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
>Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
>which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
>possibly do?
For that matter, why would God be impressed by the ritual killing
of a being with a soul -- especially a -sinless- being, as you imply above?
If, as you say, all animals have souls, what is the difference between
killing an animal and a person? Enslaving an animal and a person?
Eating an animal and a person?
In short, do animals have a different "quality" of soul than we
do? Is it simply their place to be at our mercy? Basically, what is the
difference, commandment-wise, between a person and an animal?
>And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could that
>be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
I have difficulty imagining a place of eternal bliss that contains
spiders. *shudder*
geo...@usa.net
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
> > yeah. speciation has been observed. next
>
> Name the organ, please.
So now you are saying that humans and chimps are the
same species?
--
Geoff Sheffield - non-standard disclaimer -
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>We must be talking about a different film. In the planet of the apes I saw,
>the earth had been nearly destroyed, and mankind had lost his dominance of the
>planet, due to weapons made possible by science and unleashed by a society
>without the morality to control itself.
well lets see..xtians had slavery, and genocide...
>
>Of course it is fiction. I did not realize this question was asked seriously.
>I constantly overestimate the intellect on TO.
>
yes i know. you've brought it down considerably.
wf...@enter.netxx
>In article <366f216e....@news3.enter.net>,
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 1998 10:02:05 -0500, ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Lacking that, perhaps some evidence that evolution has or is moving from the
>> >simple to the complex?
>>
>> where is this part of evolution? you got something besides a
>> creationist strawman?
>
>If you choose to believe in something which you call 'evolution' which does
>NOT move from the simple to the complex, I will have no argument with you.
funny that every scientist says this is NOT a required part of
evolution. if you have contrary evidence from evolutionary biology i'd
be obliged if you'd post it
>My argument is with those who view the entire spectrum of life on this planet
>to be a progression from single celled organisms in the beginning to
>humankind today.
again, id be obliged if you could find a scientist who says this. its
a creationist strawman.
>> >Development of some new complex organ, observed?
>>
>> yeah. speciation has been observed. next
>
>Name the organ, please.
reproductive organs.
next
>
>>
>> yeah. the evolution of whales. see s.j. gould 'dinosaur in a haystack'
>> for good info on the transitionals in whales
>
>Not at all complete, no steady progression EACH MEMBER of which is dated
>according to its STRATA rather than the evolutionary NEED.
thats how the 'progression' was dated...not according to need. if you
have proof it was dated according to NEED, then post it.
thats called 'bearing false witness'.
>
>>
>> see also the november 19 issue of 'nature' for an article by pearson
>> on the 60 million yr evidence for the evolution of foraminifera
>>
>> by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
>> event?
>>
>
>Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
>naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
oh. so no evidence will be considered. your mind is made up, and dont
confuse you with the facts...yeah, thats what i said your argument is.
thanks for admitting it.
creation is left? thats your logic? IOW since there is no current
theory of how quantum physics and gravity can be united, i can invent
a theory involving elves and keebler cookie factories, and that makes
it true?
yep...more creationist logic.
Stjepan Pejic
> When every attempt by man to replace God with a
> naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
You are so right. When evil-otion is overthrown, then only the
creation story of Shamash will be left. All hail Shamash!
(BTW: you do not need to capitalize "God" in this case, as there
are other gods besides Shamash, like his wife.)
Now that I think of it, your logic is actually quite attractive.
For example "When Microsoft is crushed by the government, then
only my operating system will be left". Boy, I will be rich!
Stjepan Pejic
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:
> ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
> >not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
> >that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
> >from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
>
> >Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
> >which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
> >possibly do?
>
> For that matter, why would God be impressed by the ritual killing
> of a being with a soul -- especially a -sinless- being, as you imply above?
> If, as you say, all animals have souls, what is the difference between
> killing an animal and a person? Enslaving an animal and a person?
> Eating an animal and a person?
Now you are beyond anyones ability to answer. Paul said "For now we see
through a glass darkly; but then face to face". I look forward to fully
understanding this. I know only that:
The implication that animals have souls is in scripture.
The command to subdue the earth is given only to humans.
>
> In short, do animals have a different "quality" of soul than we
> do? Is it simply their place to be at our mercy? Basically, what is the
> difference, commandment-wise, between a person and an animal?
We are to have dominance over them, yet to regard their life -
>
> >And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could that
> >be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
>
> I have difficulty imagining a place of eternal bliss that contains
> spiders. *shudder*
Now THAT is weird. I have the exact same feeling. Snakes are OK, but
anything with more than two eyes and more than four legs makes my skin crawl.
I can only assume that we will be asked at the door "Spider or non spider?"
:^)
Until then -
>
> -jht
> --
> Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
> jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
> http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
> Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
> ========================================================= // \\
> "M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
>
A classic.
>
--
American Patriot
Dave Horn
<74of3a$5uo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <d7Kb2.32112$Pk4.17...@news.inreach.com>,
> "Mike Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>> Stix wrote in message <36724c18...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>> >ttra...@my-dejanews.com posted the following to alt.atheism:
>> >>dave haas wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>> >
>> >>Yup.
>> >
>> >LOL!
>> >
>> >You know you're conversing with the equivalent of pond
>> >scum when someone answers 'yes' to that question.
[Snip]
>> But it allows for the powerful and moving "Nope",
>> which remains within the four letter word limit.
>
>'Nah' is a better fit - and it matches so well the melodic
>flow of 'yup'
>
>It's simply this; this debate has gone on for long enough
>that you guys know what I will say, and I know what you
>will say, etc., and every now and then, rather than launch
>(again) a long winded explaination about a familiar topic
>about which I have been posed a 'set-up' type question,
>I will just say -
>
>Yup.
And you will be wrong each time.
Go to the talk.origins archive site. Pick any of the articles that appear
at that site on this subject, bring it back here to the group, and tell us
what is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong with it.
Louann Miller
> > yeah. the evolution of whales. see s.j. gould 'dinosaur in a haystack'
> > for good info on the transitionals in whales
>
> no steady progression EACH MEMBER of which is dated
> according to its STRATA rather than the evolutionary NEED.
You must have been reading a different source, because apart from the
word 'no' that was a remarkably clear description of what the series
actually *is.* The geologists of the early 19th century who mapped
strata worldwide were not trying to prove evolution, since Darwin hadn't
even written on evolution yet. Their field data is still very much in
use.
> > by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
> > event?
> Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
> naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
You're right. Brahma the Merciful made it all.
Honus
>
> In article <74mc7a$l...@du.ics.uci.edu>,
> Tedd Hadley <had...@du.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
> > I've never heard this before. What "branch" of Christianity do
> > you belong to, if you don't mind my asking? Also, what is your
> > Biblical support for this assertion?
> I am a member of no major denomination, so I guess that makes me part of the
> trunk, rather than a branch.
I always knew you were a knothead. ;)
> :^)
And finally, the Pinocchio face that you use takes on even more
significance. Beyond just the lies that you bring before us, there's the
wooden head. ;>
> In numbers 22, the story of Balaam and his ass: The animal sees the angel (a
> spiritual being) when Balaam cannot.
Sorry, but donkeys are physically incapable of replicating human speech
as the donkey does in this story. We know this to be true. Science has
shown this. The people who wrote the mythology that rules your life
couldn't appreciate the intricacies involved in human speech. Once
again, science shows us what is, and how things really are...and where
the Bible is wrong. Donkeys not only don't speak Hebrew, they CAN'T
speak Hebrew. Therefore, I feel safe in assuming that the rest of the
story is bullshit as well.
> In revelation, Christ is to return at the battle of armegeddon along with ten
> thousand of his saints, mounted on white horses. Where did they get the
> horses, if animals do not have spirits which transcend death?
The same place that the gods of the ancient Greeks got theirs. Out of
their fertile imaginations.
> Remember the story of Christ casting out evil spirits - the group called
> Legion. They requested that he cast them into the herd of pigs, which he did.
> How did the pigs hold evil spirits if they are not capable of holding a spirit
> at all?
And so there's room in all of us for more than one soul? That's a lot of
wasted space.
Anything is possible in the worlds of fiction and its cousin, religion.
;)
> Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
> not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
> that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
> from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
Then you're not looking in the right place. Close your bible and get a
resentful dog.
Are you saying that when Fido craps on the floor, knowing full well that
you will be displeased, he's not sinning? He knows it's wrong, yet he
does it anyway. I'd call that sin, if I were a member of an ancient
Hebrew death cult like yourself.
> Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
> which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
> possibly do?
> And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could that
> be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
I don't you about *you*, but my eyes are closed when I'm getting off.
But I've got to agree about the dog bit. :)
Honus
> Now THAT is weird. I have the exact same feeling. Snakes are OK, but
> anything with more than two eyes and more than four legs makes my skin crawl.
So tell us, how do you feel about grasshoppers, and why you feel as you
do. Is your feeling based on your own observations of them, or the
biblical description?
Quick, how many legs do they have?
Honus
>
> In article <366F8A26...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <MPG.10d75c394...@news.campuscw.net>,
> > > dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
> >
> > > > Would a hybrid human\chimp have a soul?
> >
> > > In this context, of course this poor creature would have a "soul".
> You haven't been following the thread, have you? My contention is that
> animals ALL have 'souls' (actually, spirit). No amount of human/animal
> experimentation would change this -
I do believe that the above poster said "in this context" which is what
I based my questions on.
> Comparing the morality of each - I don't think Christ's followers come out too
> bad, on average. You guys have all that humanist movement baggage - -
Of which I personally don't know any adherents. I also don't know of any
genocides or oppressions committed in the name of humanism.
> > And your biblical evidence for this is? Please, no talking donkeys. ;)
>
> There is nowhere where it is specifically stated that all animals have a
> spirit. I have quoted the evidence in scripture which leads me to believe
> that they do. There is certainly nowhere in scripture where it is stated
> that only humans have a spirit, nor is there any place that denies that
> animals do.
There's nowhere that it is stated that Peter wasn't balling Mary. An
omission isn't support. And your verses supporting your animal/soul
belief are MORE than a little bit debatable.
> > > > Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
> > >
> > > Yup.
> >
> > Yeah.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> Beginning to sound like King of the Hill, isn't it?
On an intellectual level, every discussion with fundies does. A-yup. ;)
> > > > Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
> > >
> > > I will leave that to you monkey experts to determine.
> >
> > Why are you so damned sure that you're correct when it comes to the deep
> > stuff that clearly goes right over your head, yet you can't handle
> > simple questions like is _The Planet of the Apes_ fiction or not? Here's
> > a hint...it's fiction, but as a parody of what happens when you put
> > religious zealots in charge of scientific endeavors it's right on the
> > money. Pierre Boulle was awesome! (I realize that was more than a hint,
> > but I'm in a helpful mood.) ;)
>
> We must be talking about a different film. In the planet of the apes I saw,
> the earth had been nearly destroyed, and mankind had lost his dominance of the
> planet, due to weapons made possible by science and unleashed by a society
> without the morality to control itself.
And of course, God was nowhere to be seen. Didn't I just hear you
jumping on someone else because they didn't see the sarcasm in a post
that you'd made? <sheesh>
> Of course it is fiction. I did not realize this question was asked seriously.
> I constantly overestimate the intellect on TO.
No, you just didn't get it.
Roberta Waddle
>
> [piggybacking....]
>
> Rune Boersjoe (lo...@my.sig) wrote:
> : >> Recently hybrids have been successfully produced using newly developed
> : >> reproductive techniques between species that have been thought to be
> : >> separate and distinct. For example, almost all cats can now be hybridized.
> : >> lion and tiger, bob cat and house cat, leopard and lion etc. There have
> : >> been successful crosses between dogs and foxes,
That's dogs and European red foxes. Chromosome number in the dog family
are highly variable. Dogs have more than twice the number of chromosomes
as red foxes.
and chickens and turkeys.
> : >> Chimeras have been produced between chickens and quail from combining cells
> : >> from embryos. Normally a hybrid will produce an embryo which will die in
> : >> the egg.
And of course, there is the famous geep, a goat-sheep chimera that the
British produced some years ago. Goat-sheep hybrids die in utero. We
should also mention the mouse-human cell hybrid that has been so useful
in genetics studies.
>
> There have also been mouse-chick embryonic chimeras created; they would
> not have lived far beyond this stage (they were destroyed). This is
> even more significant than the quail-chick chimeras, as mice and chicks
> aren't even in the same class. The possibility of producing viable
> interspecies/interclass/etc hybrids was not a topic of this particular
> study.
>
> The quail-chick chimeras also died at the embryonic stage--despite the
> implication above, these chimeras were *not* viable.
Where, oh where did I see that picture of a quail-chicken chimera? I
think it was in the Journal of Heredity a year or three ago. These
chimeras die as young poults when the chicken immune system kicks in and
rejects the quail tissue.
> I don't have the reference for this on me, as I left it at home after
> getting an A (or A-) on the paper I wrote on this last year for an
> embryology class. If anyone cares, I can easily find the reference (and
> yes, it was a peer-reviewed scientific journal).
>
> -HiLary, #193, SP5
>
> "I still think, in general, poking around strange statues in an
> undiscovered pyramid tomb filled with traps is a bad idea."
> -Riff
> www.sluggy.com
Roberta Waddle
>
> In article <74ospc$khm$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:
> > ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >
> > >not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
> > >that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
> > >from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
> >
> > >which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
> > >possibly do?
> >
> > of a being with a soul -- especially a -sinless- being, as you imply above?
> > If, as you say, all animals have souls, what is the difference between
> > killing an animal and a person? Enslaving an animal and a person?
> > Eating an animal and a person?
>
> Now you are beyond anyones ability to answer. Paul said "For now we see
> through a glass darkly; but then face to face". I look forward to fully
> understanding this. I know only that:
>
> The implication that animals have souls is in scripture.
>
> The command to subdue the earth is given only to humans.
>
> >
> > In short, do animals have a different "quality" of soul than we
> > do? Is it simply their place to be at our mercy? Basically, what is the
> > difference, commandment-wise, between a person and an animal?
>
> We are to have dominance over them, yet to regard their life -
>
> >
> > >be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
> >
> > spiders. *shudder*
>
> Now THAT is weird. I have the exact same feeling. Snakes are OK, but
> anything with more than two eyes and more than four legs makes my skin crawl.
Ah, but pecan cricket pie is quite tasty. So is shrimp and lobster. And I'm sorry you
dislike butterflies. I think they are rather pretty myself.
> I can only assume that we will be asked at the door "Spider or non spider?"
Spiders yes. Smokers no.
Stix
> "Mike Painter" wrote:
>> Stix wrote:
>> >>dave haas wrote:
>> >>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>> >>Yup.
>> >LOL!
>> >You know you're conversing with the equivalent of pond scum when someone
>> >answers 'yes' to that question.
>> But it allows for the powerful and moving "Nope", which remains within the
>> four letter word limit.
>'Nah' is a better fit - and it matches so well the melodic flow of 'yup'
>It's simply this; this debate has gone on for long enough that you guys know
>what I will say, and I know what you will say, etc., and every now and then,
>rather than launch (again) a long winded explaination about a familiar topic
>about which I have been posed a 'set-up' type question, I will just say -
>Yup.
And by doing so you demonstrate rather conclusively that you have an
intellect roughly equivalent to that of pond scum -- as I first said.
ttra...@my-dejanews.com
I am overwhelmed by the scintilating brilliance of your all powerful
intellect. I stand in awe, oh mighty learned one! Please, give me something
to believe today - some crumb, some dribble from your unaproachable lip, that
I may repeat so that I will appear 'learned' to my fellow pond scumites - -
Ken Cox
> Where, oh where did I see that picture of a quail-chicken chimera? I
> think it was in the Journal of Heredity a year or three ago. These
> chimeras die as young poults when the chicken immune system kicks in and
> rejects the quail tissue.
Excellent. Science has finally found a solution to the Easter chick
problem -- planned obsolescence at the genetic level. Now all they
need to do is start breeding for pastel colors.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
stoney
[>In article <366ddf16...@news.comm-plus.net>, wolf...@nospam.com
[>says...
[>>On 8 Dec 1998 15:53:30 -0500, dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net (dave haas) wrote:
[>>
[>>
[>>This reminds me. A while ago I read that some scientist somewhere had created
a
[>>goat-rabbit hybrid. However, I believe I read it in a paranormal or
conspiracy
[>>book, so I'm loathe to believe it. But since you seem to have a nice little
list
[>>of other crossbreeds there, can you (or anyone) tell me if this was true?
[>
[>
[> I would imagine there are too many genetic differences between goats and
[>rabbits to get a viable embryo. The most you could probably do would be to
[>fuse embryonic cells and attempt to produce part goat and part rabbit.
[>This may have been done although I doubt it. If so such a creature would
[>not function very well in the real world. Kind of like some of the posters
[>in this NG. :-)
It's called a 'grabbitt'..... :)
[>D. Haas
Stoney
stoney
[>In article <3680f22d...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
LOL!!!!!!!!
Stoney
Jessica Logan
>> by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
>> event?
>>
>
>Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
>naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
Nonsense. It's turtles all the way down.
Jessica #84
... Of course I respect your lunatic beliefs.
Thomas Paine
>In article <74ospc$khm$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> jht...@students.uiuc.edu (jeremy howard todd) wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>> >Scripture is rife with mention of MANY different spiritual beings which are
>> >not, and never were, human. It is only our arrogance which makes us think
>> >that only WE will ascend into glory. My bible tells me that humankind fell
>> >from grace and sinned; I find no where that the animal kingdom did likewise.
>>
>> >Note also the animal sacrifice which covered sins until Christ's sacrifice
>> >which removed them. What would the blood of a creature without spirit
>> >possibly do?
>>
>> For that matter, why would God be impressed by the ritual killing
>> of a being with a soul -- especially a -sinless- being, as you imply above?
>> If, as you say, all animals have souls, what is the difference between
>> killing an animal and a person? Enslaving an animal and a person?
>> Eating an animal and a person?
>
>Now you are beyond anyones ability to answer. Paul said "For now we see
>through a glass darkly; but then face to face". I look forward to fully
>understanding this. I know only that:
>
>The implication that animals have souls is in scripture.
>
>The command to subdue the earth is given only to humans.
Don't recall the exact words (in genesis?) ... but I don't think it was
"subdue". ... or "dominance"
>
>>
>> In short, do animals have a different "quality" of soul than we
>> do?
They have the beta version...
Is it simply their place to be at our mercy? Basically, what is the
>> difference, commandment-wise, between a person and an animal?
>
>We are to have dominance over them, yet to regard their life -
>
>>
>> >And besides - God's kingdom is to be a place of eternal bliss; how could
> that
>> >be without a good dog and a horse? Or a herd of deer to watch?
>>
>> I have difficulty imagining a place of eternal bliss that contains
>> spiders. *shudder*
>
>Now THAT is weird. I have the exact same feeling. Snakes are OK, but
>anything with more than two eyes and more than four legs makes my skin crawl.
> I can only assume that we will be asked at the door "Spider or non spider?"
>
>:^)
>
>Until then -
>
>>
>> -jht
>> --
>> Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/
>> jht...@uiuc.edu ITCS Systems Development <__ \_.---.
>> http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC \_ / \
>> Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) \)\ /\.\
>> ========================================================= // \\
>> "M-O-O-N, that spells moon" - Tom Cullen ,/' `\_,
>>
>
>A classic.
>
>>
>
>
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
Thomas Paine
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
Louann Miller wrote in message <366EB3...@mail.smu.edu>...
>ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>I think you'll find that this is against the main stream of Christian
>thought throughout history -- the soul is generally supposed to be
>exactly that part which people have and nonpeople don't. I also doubt
>you'll find a Biblical reference to the souls of animals, though I'd
>love to see a chapter and verse if you have one.
>
And I would like to see you quote Christian philosophers who have denied the
spiritual existence of animals, as you claim that such a line of
argumentation is against "main stream" Christian thought.
Who would you have in mind?
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>true believer.
>
Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the average
evolutionary atheist.
(5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
SCIENCE.
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
dave haas wrote in message ...
>Now you assume the creature would be poor. I have a feeling if something
>this unique was produced that the hybrid would have celebrity status with
>more money and care than you will or I will ever have.
>
Yet again the materialist emerges, crediting the value of life to the value
of the dollar...
>Exactly what is my argument? The above was a question. If each species
>was created special and separate then how do you explain fertile hybrids
>between species? Is the species concept the best way to look at life on
>earth?
>
Species concept concept is an idea which apparently is undergoing a Kuhnian
shift, which is not an unexpected event in the course of evolutionary
discourse. I would imagine that a branching set based on genetic
similarities would be more exact than species.
BTW, the ability of the sub-creator (man) to alter the world of the Creator
(God) is also not an unexpected implication of Christian Neoplatonism. That
is, I am not at all surprised that man can reinvent species based upon the
capacity given to us in our legitimate role as sub-creators. I do believe
that the line of investigation being explored in this thread is a perversion
of the dominion mandate, and yet one more aspect of the hubris of humanity.
>
>>>
>>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>>
>>Yup.
Define "really". :-)
As you know, I don't think the earth is only 10,000 years old. Next
question.
>>
>>>
>>> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>>
Taken seriously for a moment, this is an interesting question. The idea of
the extension of intelligence was not the original purpose behind the
movies, but only came to the forefront in the later episodes. Even then, the
idea was clearly a satirical look at our own culture, however, as far as the
basic science goes, I see no reason why the basic idea would be unworkable.
The _Island of Dr. Moreau_ (sp?) also examines this theme, (and yes, I did
like the latest remake better than the original movie), and does an
interesting job identifying the roots of ethical and non-ethical behavior in
man.
Ethical is another question altogether, yet ethics rarely troubles science.
kestrel_mp
Thomas Paine
>
>maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>>ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>>person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>>true believer.
>>
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the average
>evolutionary atheist.
What about the evolutionary christians?
>
>(5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
>SCIENCE.
God science? Who plays the part of jesus.... Newton or Einstein?
>
>kestrel_mp
maff91
<lou...@post.cis.smu.edu> wrote:
>ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> > yeah. the evolution of whales. see s.j. gould 'dinosaur in a haystack'
>> > for good info on the transitionals in whales
>>
>> no steady progression EACH MEMBER of which is dated
>> according to its STRATA rather than the evolutionary NEED.
>
>You must have been reading a different source, because apart from the
>word 'no' that was a remarkably clear description of what the series
>actually *is.* The geologists of the early 19th century who mapped
>strata worldwide were not trying to prove evolution, since Darwin hadn't
>even written on evolution yet. Their field data is still very much in
>use.
>
>
>> > by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
>> > event?
>
>> Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
>> naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
>
>You're right. Brahma the Merciful made it all.
Hey Louann! What are you trying to do? Now he's going to parrot Hindu
creationist myths.
Splifford
<kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com" <remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
> >Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
> >ignorance with incredible arrogance.
> >Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
> >person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
> >true believer.
> >
>
>
> Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the average
> evolutionary atheist.
And here I was sure that I was a Catholic. Guess I was wrong.
>
> (5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
> SCIENCE.
Intriguing. Very. So why are you using a computer, a product of that god?
Get thee to a monestary.
>
> kestrel_mp
--
Booster
>
>maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>>ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>>person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>>true believer.
>>
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the average
>evolutionary atheist.
>
>(5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
>SCIENCE.
I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>kestrel_mp
>
>
>
Shawn Allen Atheist #383
Boo...@dynasty.net.net <--spam foiler
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
_____|_____|_____|DEFEND_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|____THE____|_____|_____|___
_____|_____|_____|_WALL|_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
maff91
<kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com" <remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>
>maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>>ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>>person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>>true believer.
>>
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the average
>evolutionary atheist.
>
>(5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
>SCIENCE.
Nope. Science is only a tool and a methodology to investigate nature
and natural phenomena.
If it was a God then you put it in a pedestal and do not mess around
with it.
>
>kestrel_mp
>
>
>
maff91
<kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com"<remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>dave haas wrote in message ...
>
>>Now you assume the creature would be poor. I have a feeling if something
>>this unique was produced that the hybrid would have celebrity status with
>>more money and care than you will or I will ever have.
>>
>
>Yet again the materialist emerges, crediting the value of life to the value
>of the dollar...
I take it that you have given all your worldly possessions to the
poor.
>
>
>>Exactly what is my argument? The above was a question. If each species
>>was created special and separate then how do you explain fertile hybrids
>>between species? Is the species concept the best way to look at life on
>>earth?
>>
>
>Species concept concept is an idea which apparently is undergoing a Kuhnian
>shift, which is not an unexpected event in the course of evolutionary
>discourse. I would imagine that a branching set based on genetic
>similarities would be more exact than species.
>
>BTW, the ability of the sub-creator (man) to alter the world of the Creator
>(God) is also not an unexpected implication of Christian Neoplatonism. That
>is, I am not at all surprised that man can reinvent species based upon the
>capacity given to us in our legitimate role as sub-creators. I do believe
>that the line of investigation being explored in this thread is a perversion
>of the dominion mandate, and yet one more aspect of the hubris of humanity.
Haven't you heard about parasitism, symbiosis and co-evolution?
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>>>
>>>Yup.
>
>
>Define "really". :-)
>
>As you know, I don't think the earth is only 10,000 years old. Next
>question.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is "Planet of the Apes" really fiction?
>>>
>
>
>Taken seriously for a moment, this is an interesting question. The idea of
>the extension of intelligence was not the original purpose behind the
>movies, but only came to the forefront in the later episodes. Even then, the
>idea was clearly a satirical look at our own culture, however, as far as the
>basic science goes, I see no reason why the basic idea would be unworkable.
>
>The _Island of Dr. Moreau_ (sp?) also examines this theme, (and yes, I did
>like the latest remake better than the original movie), and does an
>interesting job identifying the roots of ethical and non-ethical behavior in
>man.
>
>Ethical is another question altogether, yet ethics rarely troubles science.
Science is not a person.
>
>kestrel_mp
>
>
>
Jessica Logan
>> by the way...you got evidence for even ONE...even a SINGLE creation
>> event?
>>
>
>Nope. I don't need it. When every attempt by man to replace God with a
>naturalistic explaination is exposed as fraud, creation is left.
Nonsense. It's turtles all the way down.
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
Splifford wrote in message ...
>In article <fglc2.608$xx1.1...@news3.mia>, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>> >Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>> >ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>> >Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>> >person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>> >true believer.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the
average
>> evolutionary atheist.
>
>
At what point did I deny your Catholicism?
>>
>> (5) seems particularly rampant among the devout worshippers of the god
>> SCIENCE.
>
>Intriguing. Very. So why are you using a computer, a product of that god?
>Get thee to a monestary.
Note: science - method of inquiry examining the physical universe around us;
product of effort: technology
SCIENCE - god of the mindless atheist, who cannot learn, nor understand,
without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
>On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
>like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
>i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>
1) I am not a fundie.
2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants, and
devout followers, such as maff
3) science is a methodology, and can have an appropriate function
4) My life is based on a Theistic Philosophy, not a religion
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
maff91 wrote in message <368559cb...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>Yet again the materialist emerges, crediting the value of life to the
value
>>of the dollar...
>
>I take it that you have given all your worldly possessions to the
>poor.
>
The poor in spirit need more than money, which does not solve all problems.
>>BTW, the ability of the sub-creator (man) to alter the world of the
Creator
>>(God) is also not an unexpected implication of Christian Neoplatonism.
That
>>is, I am not at all surprised that man can reinvent species based upon the
>>capacity given to us in our legitimate role as sub-creators. I do believe
>>that the line of investigation being explored in this thread is a
perversion
>>of the dominion mandate, and yet one more aspect of the hubris of
humanity.
>
>Haven't you heard about parasitism, symbiosis and co-evolution?
>
And this has to do with what?
>>Taken seriously for a moment, this is an interesting question. The idea of
>>the extension of intelligence was not the original purpose behind the
>>movies, but only came to the forefront in the later episodes. Even then,
the
>>idea was clearly a satirical look at our own culture, however, as far as
the
>>basic science goes, I see no reason why the basic idea would be
unworkable.
>>
>>The _Island of Dr. Moreau_ (sp?) also examines this theme, (and yes, I did
>>like the latest remake better than the original movie), and does an
>>interesting job identifying the roots of ethical and non-ethical behavior
in
>>man.
>>
>>Ethical is another question altogether, yet ethics rarely troubles
science.
>
>Science is not a person.
No, its a system of faith, oddly enough, lacking a code of ethics.
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
maff91 wrote in message <36845793...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>maff91 wrote in message <3680ed97...@newnews.dial.pipex.com>...
>>>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
>>>ignorance with incredible arrogance.
>>>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
>>>person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
>>>true believer.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Interestingly enough, the same characteristics can be applied to the
average
>>evolutionary atheist.
>>
>>SCIENCE.
>
>and natural phenomena.
>
science is. SCIENCE is the religion many atheists blindly and ignorantly
worship.
kestrel_mp
wf...@enter.netxx
<kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com"<remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>Science is not a person.
>
>
>No, its a system of faith, oddly enough, lacking a code of ethics.
>
>kestrel_mp
meaningless. faith in what? to what end? what dogma?
you say nothing at all.
very zen.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Note: science - method of inquiry examining the physical universe around us;
>product of effort: technology
> SCIENCE - god of the mindless atheist, who cannot learn, nor understand,
>without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
>
meaningless. there are many forms of atheism. there are some atheists
who are quite ignorant of science. sounds like a typical
generalization from someone for whom aphorisms replace thinking.
wf...@enter.netxx
<kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com"<remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
>>On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>
>>I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
>>like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
>>i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>>
>
>
>1) I am not a fundie.
>2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants, and
>devout followers, such as maff
meaningless. religion is a teleology. there is no teleology in science
>4) My life is based on a Theistic Philosophy, not a religion
>
thats, of course, what all third rate religious hacks say. st.
paul,however, was quite approving of religion.
Boikat
>
> Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
> >On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>
> >I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
> >like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
> >i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
> >
>
> 1) I am not a fundie.
> 2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants, and
> devout followers, such as maff
Science is not a religion, nor is it a religious
philosophy. Any "faith" involved in science is
based upon some form of supporting evidence, which
is quite different from "Faith" used in a
religious context. I have *faith* that tomorrow
morning the sun will appear to rise above the
eastern horizon. This is based upon my
understanding of the earth's rotation, and the
extreme unliklyhood of the earth's rotation
suddenly stopping. This is different from a
religious "faith", such as I have *Faith* in God,
which is solely based upon a "belief" in God that
is insupportable in the scientific sense.
Now, while you imply that being a "devout
follower" seems to imply that is a criteria for
establishing science as a religion, does the same
hold for someone who "devoutly" watches a certain
TV show, or "devoutly" follows a certain sports
team? Of course, there is the saying, "He follows
the Dallas Cowboys religiously", but do you equate
that context as being the same as being the same
meaning as the religion that deals with
spirituality and a belief in Gods or gods?
> 3) science is a methodology, and can have an appropriate function
> 4) My life is based on a Theistic Philosophy, not a religion
>
> kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in message <36733b72....@news3.enter.net>...
>On 12 Dec 1998 22:21:21 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
us;
>>product of effort: technology
>> SCIENCE - god of the mindless atheist, who cannot learn, nor
understand,
>>without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
>>
>
>meaningless. there are many forms of atheism.
I am refering to the mindless kind.
there are some atheists
>who are quite ignorant of science.
No kidding!
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in message <36733bb3....@news3.enter.net>...
>On 12 Dec 1998 22:23:12 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>>>On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>>
>>>I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
>>>like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
>>>i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>1) I am not a fundie.
>>2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants,
and
>>devout followers, such as maff
>
>
Interesting distinction. But there is teleology in science. Can you guess
what it is?
>>4) My life is based on a Theistic Philosophy, not a religion
>>
>
>thats, of course, what all third rate religious hacks say. st.
>paul,however, was quite approving of religion.
>
Semantic games will get you nowhere.
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in message <36733b2d....@news3.enter.net>...
>On 12 Dec 1998 22:26:53 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>>
>>
>>No, its a system of faith, oddly enough, lacking a code of ethics.
>>
>>kestrel_mp
>
>meaningless. faith in what?
Empirical reality
>to what end?
Not sure. Sciene is purposeless?
>what dogma?
>
No fair, I asked this question of you in another post You aren't getting any
more hints.
kestrel_mp
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
Boikat wrote in message <36733DF6...@bellsouth.net>...
>"Kestrel_MP" com wrote:
>>
>> Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
>> >On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>>
>> >I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
>> >like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
>> >i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>> >
>>
>> 1) I am not a fundie.
>> 2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants,
and
>> devout followers, such as maff
>
>philosophy. Any "faith" involved in science is
>based upon some form of supporting evidence, which
>is quite different from "Faith" used in a
>religious context.
Nope same faith. Faith in empirical reality. Or do you lack this faith?
I have *faith* that tomorrow
>morning the sun will appear to rise above the
>eastern horizon.
Good guess.
This is based upon my
>understanding of the earth's rotation, and the
>extreme unliklyhood of the earth's rotation
>suddenly stopping.
Probably true. As long as the VR rules hold up. Reference the Platonic
Philosophy thread on alt.atheism.
This is different from a
>religious "faith", such as I have *Faith* in God,
>which is solely based upon a "belief" in God that
>is insupportable in the scientific sense.
>
Why should I want scientific evidence?
>Now, while you imply that being a "devout
>follower" seems to imply that is a criteria for
>establishing science as a religion, does the same
>hold for someone who "devoutly" watches a certain
>TV show, or "devoutly" follows a certain sports
>team?
Well yes. Some people do make sports and TV into religions.
Of course, there is the saying, "He follows
>the Dallas Cowboys religiously", but do you equate
>that context as being the same as being the same
>meaning as the religion that deals with
>spirituality and a belief in Gods or gods?
>
Similar, yes. Religion implies devotion to not related to empirical
evidence. So why watch the Cowboys instead of the Falcons? Do Cowboys fans
have valid demonstrable reasons which can be dissected via scientific modes
of analysis?
kestrel_mp
Laurie Catallo-Kenyon
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <36733b72....@news3.enter.net>...
> On 12 Dec 1998 22:21:21 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
> <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com" <remo...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Note: science - method of inquiry examining the physical universe around
us;
> >product of effort: technology
> > SCIENCE - god of the mindless atheist, who cannot learn, nor
understand,
> >without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
> >
>
> meaningless. there are many forms of atheism. there are some atheists
> who are quite ignorant of science. sounds like a typical
> generalization from someone for whom aphorisms replace thinking.
>
Science is one of the most beautiful languages God speaks. It is another
peek into the complex and creative mind of God. The God of the Bible is
the God of science. He is the God who created our amazing brains. He
would not have given us such amazing capacities if He did not expect us to
use them.
"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."
Einstein
The Bible is fundamental. So is science. The room for debate is in the
interpretation of scientific facts. I was a follower of Christ long before
I ever abandoned macro-evolution as a viable theory.
"Kestrel_MP" <kestrel_mp@hotmail.<tag>com
ttra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<74retl$oph$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3680f22d...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>> ttra...@my-dejanews.com posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>
>> > "Mike Painter" wrote:
>>
>> >> Stix wrote:
>>
>> >> >>dave haas wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Is the earth really only a few thousand years old?
>>
>> >> >>Yup.
>>
>>
>> >> >You know you're conversing with the equivalent of pond scum when
someone
>> >> >answers 'yes' to that question.
>>
>> >> But it allows for the powerful and moving "Nope", which remains within
the
>> >> four letter word limit.
>>
>> >'Nah' is a better fit - and it matches so well the melodic flow of 'yup'
>>
>> >It's simply this; this debate has gone on for long enough that you guys
know
>> >what I will say, and I know what you will say, etc., and every now and
then,
>> >rather than launch (again) a long winded explaination about a familiar
topic
>> >about which I have been posed a 'set-up' type question, I will just
say -
>>
>> >Yup.
>>
>> And by doing so you demonstrate rather conclusively that you have an
>> intellect roughly equivalent to that of pond scum -- as I first said.
>>
>> Stix
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>> "Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>
>>
>
>I am overwhelmed by the scintilating brilliance of your all powerful
>intellect. I stand in awe, oh mighty learned one! Please, give me
something
>to believe today - some crumb, some dribble from your unaproachable lip,
that
>I may repeat so that I will appear 'learned' to my fellow pond scumites - -
>
>--
>American Patriot
>
Be careful. The powerful baawa intellect often does not comprehend sarcasm
from lowly pond scumites.
You will be asked to be high priest of stix if you keep this up!
kestrel_mp
Thomas Paine
(snip)
> SCIENCE - god of the mindless atheist, who cannot learn, nor understand,
>without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
BABBLE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it's ok .... he lies for god...
Thomas Paine
>
>Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
>>On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
>
>>I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
>>like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
>>i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
>>
>
>
>1) I am not a fundie.
Ahhhh.. denial. The first stage of a fundiholic.
>2) The equation is that SCIENCE is also a religion, with faith tenants, and
>devout followers, such as maff
Attack the accusers ... fundiholic trait # 7
>3) science is a methodology, and can have an appropriate function
Slip in a bit of realism for effect..
>4) My life is based on a Theistic Philosophy, not a religion
Then back to denial by re-describing the dysfunction in a different light.
Boikat
> >>
> >> Booster wrote in message <36790e61...@news.dynasty.net>...
> >> >On 11 Dec 1998 22:15:54 -0500, "\"Kestrel_MP\"
> >>
> >> >I find it fascinating that you fundies try to insult what you don't
> >> >like by equating it to the one thing you base your whole existence on,
> >> >i.e. science=religion. Probably some kinda freudian thing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 1) I am not a fundie.
> and
> >> devout followers, such as maff
> >
> >philosophy. Any "faith" involved in science is
> >based upon some form of supporting evidence, which
> >is quite different from "Faith" used in a
> >religious context.
>
> Nope same faith. Faith in empirical reality. Or do you lack this faith?
What is the empirical evidence for God. Don't try
top pull some subjective interpretation such as
"The universe is "designed" for life. (That dog
not only doesn't hun, it doesn't even bark.)
>
> I have *faith* that tomorrow
> >morning the sun will appear to rise above the
> >eastern horizon.
>
> Good guess.
No guessing involved.
>
> This is based upon my
> >understanding of the earth's rotation, and the
> >extreme unliklyhood of the earth's rotation
> >suddenly stopping.
>
> Probably true. As long as the VR rules hold up. Reference the Platonic
> Philosophy thread on alt.atheism.
Actually, AFAIAC, 95% of philosophy is BS.
Especially Platonic Philosophy (Which is 100% BS,
AFAIAC)
>
> This is different from a
> >religious "faith", such as I have *Faith* in God,
> >which is solely based upon a "belief" in God that
> >is insupportable in the scientific sense.
> >
>
> Why should I want scientific evidence?
Who said you did? But the point was, and still
is, to distinguish between the two usage's of
"religion" that you seem to think are equal
meanings. Besides, This thread is appearing in
Talk.Origins, and it's the scientific evidence
that holds water, not personal philosophical brain
candy. If you are not interested in scientific,
empirical evidence, then I leave it up to you to
trim the NG header.
>
> >Now, while you imply that being a "devout
> >follower" seems to imply that is a criteria for
> >establishing science as a religion, does the same
> >hold for someone who "devoutly" watches a certain
> >TV show, or "devoutly" follows a certain sports
> >team?
>
> Well yes. Some people do make sports and TV into religions.
And you equate that with religion of a spiritual
nature? Are you daft?
>
> Of course, there is the saying, "He follows
> >the Dallas Cowboys religiously", but do you equate
> >that context as being the same as being the same
> >meaning as the religion that deals with
> >spirituality and a belief in Gods or gods?
> >
>
> Similar, yes. Religion implies devotion to not related to empirical
> evidence. So why watch the Cowboys instead of the Falcons? Do Cowboys fans
> have valid demonstrable reasons which can be dissected via scientific modes
> of analysis?
"Similar" does not mean "Equal to". That is the
point. Thanks for playing.
Boikat
>
> kestrel_mp
Boikat
>
> wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <36733b72....@news3.enter.net>...
> us;
> > >product of effort: technology
> understand,
> > >without attributions of all knowledge to this deity.
> > >
> >
> > who are quite ignorant of science. sounds like a typical
> > generalization from someone for whom aphorisms replace thinking.
> >
> Science is one of the most beautiful languages God speaks. It is another
> peek into the complex and creative mind of God. The God of the Bible is
> the God of science. He is the God who created our amazing brains. He
> would not have given us such amazing capacities if He did not expect us to
> use them.
> "I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."
> Einstein
> The Bible is fundamental. So is science. The room for debate is in the
> interpretation of scientific facts. I was a follower of Christ long before
> I ever abandoned macro-evolution as a viable theory.
Aneurysm?
mel turner
[snip]
>Science is one of the most beautiful languages God speaks.
Poetic, but perhaps you mean "nature". I'd say "science" refers to a class
of human activities and their results.
>It is another
>peek into the complex and creative mind of God. The God of the Bible is
>the God of science. He is the God who created our amazing brains. He
>would not have given us such amazing capacities if He did not expect us
>to use them.
It's odd then that creationists prefer to deny the conclusions from such
use.
> "I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."
> Einstein
E. was speaking metaphorically, perhaps, since he reportedly wasn't theistic
in the usual sense. [e.g., <http://x5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=221440429>]
>The Bible is fundamental. So is science.
Apples and oranges or some other non-apple sort of fruit.
>The room for debate is in the
>interpretation of scientific facts. I was a follower of Christ long before
>I ever abandoned macro-evolution as a viable theory.
Lots of theists accept the abundant evidence for biological evolution; there
needn't be a conflict:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
So, you'd "abandoned macro-evolution as a viable theory"? What exactly does
that mean? Did you really understand it well enough to be able to
abandon it? Somehow I doubt you really knew what the word macroevolution
means in biology [the term is very often misappropriated and misused by
creationists]:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
By the biological definition, macroevolution [speciation] has indeed been
observed to occur:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
and there's lots of evidence for the reality of evolutionary common descent.
Anyway, what's so "un-viable" about current evolutionary theory, in your
view?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
cheers