SKEPTICS
Gary Wayne
I will for sake of argument say this. Every major religion in the world
& billions of people over thousands of years both believe in & have
provided stories & evidence of an afterlife(astral ) You skeptics seem
to be calling an awful lot of people liars. Science is pure BS because
everyone knows how closed minded they are.
Give me proof of socalled Evolution if you can.
I will be waiting for that absolute proof that science has never been
able to find, yet its taught as fact. I will say again science is BS.
For the record, here is one Christian who believes in the bible & astral
projection.
GW
Ian H Spedding
2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
> While I am a Christian & I only believe in Christ.
> I will for sake of argument say this. Every major religion in the world
> & billions of people over thousands of years both believe in & have
> provided stories & evidence of an afterlife(astral ) You skeptics seem
> to be calling an awful lot of people liars. Science is pure BS because
> everyone knows how closed minded they are.
Not liars, at least not most of them. Some Young Earth
Creationists, though, seem to think that lying for Christ is
acceptable.
> Give me proof of socalled Evolution if you can.
Visit the talk.origins archive website and you should find all
the evidence you need
> I will be waiting for that absolute proof that science has never been
> able to find, yet its taught as fact. I will say again science is BS.
Evolution _is_ a fact in the sense that living things change
slowly over time. That has been known for a long time. Animal
breeders have made use of the process to produce cattle with
more meat, sheep with more wool, horses that run faster
and so on. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural
selection, coupled with more recent discoveries in genetics,
provides the most widely-accepted explanation of how it occurs
naturally.
> For the record, here is one Christian who believes in the bible & astral
> projection.
The Bible doesn't deny that evolution can occur.
I've taken the liberty of crossposting this to talk.origins.
There are participants there who think as you do and could use
your support.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
pz
<8954-3ED...@storefull-2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
ELth...@webtv.net (Gary Wayne) wrote:
> While I am a Christian & I only believe in Christ.
> I will for sake of argument say this. Every major religion in the world
> & billions of people over thousands of years both believe in & have
> provided stories & evidence of an afterlife(astral ) You skeptics seem
> to be calling an awful lot of people liars.
I prefer the word "deluded".
> Science is pure BS because
> everyone knows how closed minded they are.
Great. When will you be giving up all the benefits of science? You
won't be able to pos on usenet anymore, you know.
> Give me proof of socalled Evolution if you can.
> I will be waiting for that absolute proof that science has never been
> able to find, yet its taught as fact. I will say again science is BS.
Jebus. You are an uneducated dingleberry, aren't you?
>
> For the record, here is one Christian who believes in the bible & astral
> projection.
You are merely confirming my bias that willfully stupid people more
readily adopt absurdities like astral projection and religion.
--
pz
David Mitchell
> While I am a Christian & I only believe in Christ.
> I will for sake of argument say this. Every major religion in the world
> & billions of people over thousands of years both believe in & have
> provided stories & evidence of an afterlife(astral )
Billions of people over thousands of years?
You exaggerate more than anyone else in the whole world.
>You skeptics seem
> to be calling an awful lot of people liars. Science is pure BS because
> everyone knows how closed minded they are.
Uh, no, see my other post.
> Give me proof of socalled Evolution if you can.
Gotta agree with pz on this one.
You can demonstrate evolution in the lab - I've seen it done in schools.
> I will be waiting for that absolute proof that science has never been
> able to find, yet its taught as fact. I will say again science is BS.
Some moths in England evolved to have different coloured wings during
because the industrial revolution meant that their surroundings became
dirtier, and they were easy prey for birds. Those which, by chance, had
darker wings tended to live longer and to breed. Eventually most of the
moth population (of that type) had dark wings.
--
=======================================================================
= David - Visit www.thehungersite.com
= Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing
=======================================================================
Gary Wayne
I am not a young earth believer, you know why? The bible don't
teach it. The creation of gen 1;2 was a recreation. Every real bible
reader knows this. The bible teaches an old old earth. But it don't
teach Evolution. Any fossil evidence there is is simply different kinds
of apes that became extinct. It does not prove in any way Evolution.
Darwin called his own theory foolishness try reading about his life.
GW
Gary Wayne
Who is Jebes? Instien believed in creation & now so does carl
sagan. Wanna compare brains with them smart guy? You are proof that
some people THINK there so smart there ignorant.
GW
pz
<14221-3E...@storefull-2233.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
ELth...@webtv.net (Gary Wayne) wrote:
> PZ,
>
> Who is Jebes?
Not a Simpsons fan, are you?
> Instien believed in creation & now so does carl
> sagan. Wanna compare brains with them smart guy? You are proof that
> some people THINK there so smart there ignorant.
I presume you mean "Einstein", although that really is the most
messed up spelling of the name I've seen yet.
Carl Sagan is dead. He doesn't believe in anything anymore.
I also think you are grossly misrepresenting their ideas. They were
both rationalists. Sagan was definitely not a creationist; he wrote
a book about evolution, for one thing.
--
pz
Ian H Spedding
2233.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
The Bible doesn't teach evolution but neither does it deny it.
There is nothing in the Bible which prevents the possibility of
God having included evolution as part of His creation.
And there are two different accounts of the Creation in Genesis.
How can this be and which one is true?
Carnac
"Gary Wayne" <ELth...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14219-3ED...@storefull-2233.public.lawson.webtv.net...
That's pretty ludicrous. ;) It seems that Xtians will try and adapt their
ideas to fit in with scientific thinking, and then swing the argument around
and say, "Oh, that's how we always saw it". :P The idea of the creation of
life is now irrelevent, especially with the advent of genetic engineering
techniques. It is not impossible to create a new organism either from
scratch, or by 'sewing' parts of genomes of many organisms together. There
is a project being started, where new bacteria are being engineered by
'borrowing' genes, etc, from multiple organisms. Does this mean that
scientists are gods as well? Once the ideas of protein science are more
fully developed, it won't be impossible to engineer complete organisms from
scratch, with the aid of computers.
pz
<14219-3ED...@storefull-2233.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
ELth...@webtv.net (Gary Wayne) wrote:
> It does not prove in any way Evolution.
> Darwin called his own theory foolishness try reading about his life.
I've read Darwin's autobiography. I've read Desmond & Moore. I've
read Browne. I've read numerous other books and articles on this
topic.
Darwin doesn't say what you claim *anywhere*. Please post your
source.
--
pz
lorz
"pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
news:pzmyers-8EEAEF...@news.fu-berlin.de...
I don't know about that but did Darwin ever make the claim that his theory
was proof that God did not exist?
pz
"lorz" <lo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. That's nonsensical on multiple levels.
Theories are abstract concepts, principles derived to explain
certain phenomena. They can't be used to provide evidence for
anything.
Scientists don't deal in proofs. We leave that to the mathematicians.
*Observations* of the real world are most definitely strong evidence
that the fundamentalist interpretation of christianity, that the
earth is young and evolution did not occur, is utter crap. Other
observations (not theory) contradict many of the claims of religion,
and lead many scientists, including Darwin, to be thoroughly
disillusioned with the lies of religion. Darwin rejected the church
and christianity. He remained publicly neutral on the idea of god,
and comes across as more of an apathetic deist. Privately, in his
letters to friends, he was more vigorous in his disbelief; he still
preferred to call himself an agnostic, however.
He never, ever called his theory "foolishness". The evidence for
evolution was overwhelming even in Darwin's day, and no one was more
aware of the immense extent of that evidence than Darwin himself.
--
pz
Ian H Spedding
lo...@bellsouth.net says...
No, my impression is that he was at pains to say that his theory
had nothing to say about the origin of the Universe. There's a
quote from him which comes from his autobiography, I think:
"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse
problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble
by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Janice
pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
I think the notion that Darwin recanted at the end of his life may have
folkloric status within certain Christian circles. I've heard the claim
made before.
--
Alt.Out-of-Body Unlimited:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The Lucid Dreaming Nook:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/nook1.html
pz
Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <pzmyers-8EEAEF...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
> >In article
> ><14219-3ED...@storefull-2233.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> > ELth...@webtv.net (Gary Wayne) wrote:
> >
> >> It does not prove in any way Evolution.
> >> Darwin called his own theory foolishness try reading about his life.
> >
> >I've read Darwin's autobiography. I've read Desmond & Moore. I've
> >read Browne. I've read numerous other books and articles on this
> >topic.
> >
> >Darwin doesn't say what you claim *anywhere*. Please post your
> >source.
>
> I think the notion that Darwin recanted at the end of his life may have
> folkloric status within certain Christian circles. I've heard the claim
> made before.
Yes. It's the Lady Hope story <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html>, a rather appallingly stupid lie. It really doesn't say much for
the honesty or intelligence of creationists and misguided christians
who perpetuate it.
--
pz
Janice
pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
Cool. The origin of the myth is known.
Carnac
> For the record, here is one Christian who believes in the bible & astral
> projection.
Hitler's regime was funded by those same people who 'believe in the
bible'... The holocaust was funded by the Catholic church... Xtian religions
have caused probably the most chaos and death in man's history. The
crusades for starters was a big money making scheme - the Catholic church
built many massive churches, lined with gold, etc, and funded this by
stealing from the world's populations - mainly through the crusades, etc.
So really, if anything, Xtianity was most likely a way of having a bit of
fun for the gods up there, at the expensive of several million people.
Ian H Spedding
car...@realitys-edge.com says...
I don't think we can single out Christianity. Islam has done it
fair share of mayhem - still is in some places. The problem is
with dogmatic and evangelical religious belief of any kind.
lorz
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.193ff2685...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
Organized religion I think is the problem. I still like to believe that
*most* people are good at heart ( Anne Frank's diary said something to that
affect too ) and are decieved by the organization. Remember many non-Jews
helped the Jews during the Holocaust. My father and his family being Jewish,
it isnt something i take lightly yet I can't see bashing everyone who is
Christian for it. Religious people in themselves I don't think cause harm.
It's the fanatics who organize. I'd try not to classify or bash an entire
group of people just because they are Christian, Muslim, black, white, or
what have you. Kind of makes you the same as what you are accusing them of,
no?
Ian H Spedding
lo...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.193ff2685...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
[...]
> > I don't think we can single out Christianity. Islam has done it
> > fair share of mayhem - still is in some places. The problem is
> > with dogmatic and evangelical religious belief of any kind.
>
> Organized religion I think is the problem. I still like to believe that
> *most* people are good at heart ( Anne Frank's diary said something to that
> affect too ) and are decieved by the organization. Remember many non-Jews
> helped the Jews during the Holocaust. My father and his family being Jewish,
> it isnt something i take lightly yet I can't see bashing everyone who is
> Christian for it. Religious people in themselves I don't think cause harm.
> It's the fanatics who organize. I'd try not to classify or bash an entire
> group of people just because they are Christian, Muslim, black, white, or
> what have you. Kind of makes you the same as what you are accusing them of,
> no?
Like you, I remember the people I knew when I belonged to the
Anglican communion as being ordinary, decent and compassionate.
They quietly did their bit towards helping others who were less
fortunate than themselves and neither trumpeted their
achievements nor expected any reward in this life. I believe the
majority of members of any church are like that.
Having said that, these religions are based on the possession of
some form of absolute Truth. These 'truths' have been revealed
or otherwise dispensed to the faithful by divine authority which
means they are beyond verification or challenge by human beings.
Indeed, in some cases it is blasphemous to do so.
The obvious danger with this is when a fanatic believes any
action taken to further this "Truth" is justified - whether or
not it overrides other rights or considerations - by that
"Truth". In other words, he or she is entitled by that "Truth"
to commit any crime they choose. We have seen that throughout
history in the Crusades, the Inquisition and, more recently, in
Islamic fundamentalism.
It is this absolute conviction that is dangerous. Doubt may be
difficult to live with but I don't think that it leads to the
sort of behaviour we see from fundamentalists.
DanKettler
wrote:
<snip>
"...have provided stories & evidence
of an afterlife (astral ) You
skeptics..."
<snip>
DK: Writing to so-called "skeptics, for the purpose of
convincing them, is an exercize in futility. Most
of those who call themselves "skeptic" are not that
at all. They are not "skeptical," they are
_sure_ of what they believe. Their belief is in
a religion: "materialist fundamentalism"
or "scientism."
DK: All you need to know about them is at, or linked from...
DK: From nearly any search engine...
DK: TYPE:
skeptics what they do and why
--
Mim
"Gary Wayne" <ELth...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8954-3ED...@storefull-2238.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Science is pure BS because
> everyone knows how closed minded they are.
Everyone else able to enjoy the irony of that statement? ^ ^
Tien Yen
lorz wrote:
> [...]>
> Organized religion I think is the problem. I still like to believe that
> *most* people are good at heart ( Anne Frank's diary said something to that
> affect too ) and are decieved by the organization. Remember many non-Jews
> helped the Jews during the Holocaust. My father and his family being Jewish,
> it isnt something i take lightly yet I can't see bashing everyone who is
> Christian for it. Religious people in themselves I don't think cause harm.
> It's the fanatics who organize. I'd try not to classify or bash an entire
> group of people just because they are Christian, Muslim, black, white, or
> what have you. Kind of makes you the same as what you are accusing them of,
> no?
Reminds me of a saying I heard:
"God gave mankind the truth. Then the devil came along and said " Let's
organize this Truth... we'll call it Religion"
Cl.Massé
O_XAa.44706$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> That's pretty ludicrous. ;) It seems that Xtians will try and adapt
> their ideas to fit in with scientific thinking, and then swing the
> argument around and say, "Oh, that's how we always saw it". :P The
> idea of the creation of life is now irrelevent, especially with the
> advent of genetic engineering techniques. It is not impossible to
> create a new organism either from scratch, or by 'sewing' parts of
> genomes of many organisms together. There is a project being started,
> where new bacteria are being engineered by 'borrowing' genes, etc,
> from multiple organisms. Does this mean that scientists are gods as
> well? Once the ideas of protein science are more fully developed, it
> won't be impossible to engineer complete organisms from scratch, with
> the aid of computers.
It isn't from scratch, it is from a living organism. What can't be man
created is *life*. Life took billions of years to emerge, in the big
reactor that is the solar system, and it is very rare in the Universe.
It is the ultimate step of complexification that began at the big bang.
We are so small beside that. The analytical mind is only able to
destroy, so do medicine anyway.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20 LPF
My OBEs are literal.
Carnac
news:3edb86b7$0$11542$626a...@news.free.fr...
> It isn't from scratch, it is from a living organism. What can't be man
It won't be too long until organisms ARE being engineered from scratch.
'Life' and 'man-made' aren't necessarily terms which can't be used together.
Cl.Massé
> It won't be too long until organisms ARE being engineered from
> scratch. 'Life' and 'man-made' aren't necessarily terms which can't
> be used together.
Have you proofs (no anecdotic ones), that life has already been man
created (not engineered, created from scratch). All the people who
purport that are unable to make it in the lab. Science deals only with
proven facts.
Cl.Massé
> Hitler's regime was funded by those same people who 'believe in the
> bible'... The holocaust was funded by the Catholic church... Xtian
> religions have caused probably the most chaos and death in man's
> history.
That's a lie. For Hitler, and the nazi, the Jew were a race, and where
persecuted as such. The Nazis believed in nothing, and have no link
with the Catholic church at all. Nazism is based on a scientific theory
of race and evolution. It's a case, with communism, where cold
rationalism is more dangerous than religion. Science can't tell what is
good.
Carnac
> "Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> U_TCa.48637$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > It won't be too long until organisms ARE being engineered from
> > scratch. 'Life' and 'man-made' aren't necessarily terms which can't
> > be used together.
>
> Have you proofs (no anecdotic ones), that life has already been man
> created (not engineered, created from scratch). All the people who
> purport that are unable to make it in the lab. Science deals only with
> proven facts.
Re-read that paragraph before yours - the first several words of that
paragraph.
Carnac
news:AVwDa.49771$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
It prolly won't be too long until they find a planet that is supportive of
life, but which has no life presently on it, where they'll put engineered
organisms, and watch that life progress, and play god over millions of
years. :P
Carnac
> "Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> M%eBa.45241$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > Hitler's regime was funded by those same people who 'believe in the
> > bible'... The holocaust was funded by the Catholic church... Xtian
> > religions have caused probably the most chaos and death in man's
> > history.
>
> That's a lie. For Hitler, and the nazi, the Jew were a race, and where
> persecuted as such. The Nazis believed in nothing, and have no link
> with the Catholic church at all. Nazism is based on a scientific theory
I think that maybe you should go and restudy your history then. Maybe you
should go and research the pope's apology for doing it.
> of race and evolution. It's a case, with communism, where cold
> rationalism is more dangerous than religion. Science can't tell what is
> good.
Go and study the history of the Nazi's and then come back.
Vesselin Peev
news:<bathi5$nah$4$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> You can demonstrate evolution in the lab - I've seen it done in schools.
I'll play the skeptic's (but not the pseudo-skeptic's) game here.
What you wrote is proof of microevolution, not mAcroevolution. For
macroevolution, science needs a huge leap of faith.
> > I will be waiting for that absolute proof that science has never been
> > able to find, yet its taught as fact. I will say again science is BS.
>
> Some moths in England evolved to have different coloured wings during
> because the industrial revolution meant that their surroundings became
> dirtier, and they were easy prey for birds. Those which, by chance, had
> darker wings tended to live longer and to breed. Eventually most of the
> moth population (of that type) had dark wings.
Well, not all of science is BS, that is for sure. Actually most of it
is NOT BS. But unfortunately, some of the most important parts of it,
and most of those that have high significance to people's lives, are
BS.
Let's see! Microevolution like change of the the color of wings is due
to change in allele frequencies, which in turn change due to
mutations. Outside stimuli change species to adapt better to their
surroundings, but there is a limit to this by design of each species.
No species has ever been PROVEN to transit from one to another, no
moth has been found to become anything else but a moth! No amount of
scientific condescension on anyone's part can be a substitute for
lacking scientific evidence. I start hating to use the word
scientific, it has been very polluted to actually mean
pseudo-scientific.
It is crucial that microevolution and macroevolution not be confused
(another less frequent confusion is between growth and
macroevolution), it is exactly that confusion which sows doubt about
any intelligent design of species in the minds of children in schools
and even grown-ups in universities. Macroevolution must be taught as
just another theory to consider, not fact, if things are going to
start being taught the right way, and truly open-minded people are
going to walk away from the instruction benches with rich
understanding of Nature.
Charles Darwin unwillingly admitted in his seminal work, "Origin of
Species":
"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot
prove that a single species has been changed."
What is the basic claim of evolutionists, and is it so difficult to
disprove it for the average person, without brain surgery or rocket
science? Note I am not using the word Darwinists, since they are not
really Darwinists, but only base their current theories on Darwin. The
claim is that through macroevolution, man and all other living
organisms have evolved from a primitive life form by means of a vast
number of lucky mutations, and they
are the only source of new genetic information. But what do mutations
really do? They are, for sure, known to cause cancer. I hope that you
also know what DNA repair is, the mechanism which fixes mutated
sections of DNA by cutting them out of chromosomes and replacing them
with a non-mutated section. People ill from xenoderma pigmentosa for
example, have inactive DNA repair, and they eventually die from
mutations caused by plain sunlight. After prolonged exposure, their
skin becomes cancerous and kills the whole body.
And how did a sophisticated instrument such as the human eye reach its
sophistication if only a small random mutation would have certainly
damaged it beyond any possible repair by further (again) random
mutations? How did the Bombardier beetle develop such a formidable
chemical weapon without exterminating itself?
Of course, the above "blows" against evolutionary theory will be never
be sufficient to convince any serious pseudo-skeptic of today, but if
such a skeptic is the least bit open-minded, they will dig up the
necessary information themselves and realize the mistakes they have
made. Arguments will do very little to prove or disprove the truth,
except announce certain facts to those who may be unaware of their
existence at all.
Several years ago, I have been a firm believer in the truth of
evolution, and know and continue following all the "unshakeable"
evidence I was cheating myself into believing back them. Some of it,
wasn't I curious enough to investigate it to the very bottom (not what
seems to be the bottom), and beyond scientific journals and textbooks,
would have surely led me to be a member of the skeptics that try to
dignify this newsgroup. Now I think that the first evolutionists have
simply performed a move from a religion,
based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, to another religion
based on total lack of evidence for macroevolution. The first
Darwinists could have had an excuse for their conclusion, it may be
said that they did not have sufficient scientific data, although even
that could be debated. Subsequent generations of researchers, however,
had not had excuse -- instead of disproving Darwin, they seem to have
comfortably dispensed of the concept of God as a Superior
Intelligence. Darwin at least thought that God designed Earth as well
as the mechanisms through which God's biological creations follow the
evolutionary patterns.
It think I would not go wrong if I say that when nowadays people think
of God, they think of religion. But God should not go hand in hand
with religion. Staunch Biblical creationists would be highly unlikely
to manage to prove how God created the Earth in 6 days, but if the
illogical distortions of religion are shed, and only pure logic
remains, we must acknowledge God exists. If we doubt it, the question
is, can we imagine what intelligence is required to make a human being
or even an animal?
Aren't contemporary movements of thought such as transhumanism more
than very arrogant about our understanding of the biological
constructions, when in fact any scientist will tell you that we have
not even begun to understand, let alone control, a millionth of a
percent of the total that exists? Is man only an inferior product of
blind physical laws, that, by presupposition, somehow got us there,
and are we knowledgeable enough to implement our techno-futuristic
views of replacing our brains with our own supercomputers, our
vascular system with a more efficient one by our standards, etc.
Shouldn't we first remember that our best minds have failed to create
even the most rudimentary biological cell...
Regarding creationism, There is a lot of evidence that does not rest
on scientific dogmatism and does confirm creationism beyond any
reasonable doubt. Statistics studies on elementary biological building
blocks can prove conclusively that life as we know it is a statistical
monstrosity, an absolute impossibility to occur in any remotely
reasonable time frame. Knowing that spontanous creation is false, the
only other choice except evolution is that that has been supernatural
creation, and we, humans, are the result of highly intelligent
creation more than any other biological species. Now evolutionists
have all but abandoned Darwin's original theory in favor of theories
like punctuated equilibrium, which are just more elaborate
reiterations of the original, attempting (unsuccessfully) to come to
terms with discrepancies such as the the lack of transitional fossils
and the sudden Cambrian explosion of species out of apparently
nowhere.
Did you know that in Chapter 4, Origin of Species, Darwin used "is
supposed to", "may have been", "perhaps", "may", "may still be" and
other similar phrases at least 187 times?
This is yours and ours science! But is it science at all? Of course,
it would be wise today, if you wanted to secure a PhD in biology or
even chemistry, and all the accompanying prestige from the title, not
to openly revolt against the authorities. Do so and at best you'll be
dropped from studying or teaching, and your name smeared as a crackpot
and a fringe researcher. I have a personal acquaintance with high
credentials (long-term PhD and many published papers) who got smeared
as a result of only thinking differently, against the Modern Church of
Scientism. I can only imagine what could have happened if he tried to
show them that he could get objective evidence of the material world
through OBE travels.
Alfred Wallace, Darwin's contemporary, also knew better, but was
ignored. He supported most of Darwin's theory, having developing one
in parallel with Darwin, but deemed it impossible that the leap from a
monkey's primitive thought to the conceptual thinking of a human being
could have ever happened without the intervention of a superior
intelligence.
"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science
becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which
our modest powers must feel humble."
-- Albert Einstein
In any case, God is not an idiot.
-Vesko
P.S.
Do read Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology" if you dare, it is a very good
book, despite skeptics' name-calling and ranting. Hey guys, you will
not look superior to those who can discern really thinking people from
others, and I think some of us are able to recognize false skeptics.
David Mitchell
> David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:<bathi5$nah$4$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>>You can demonstrate evolution in the lab - I've seen it done in schools.
>
>
> I'll play the skeptic's (but not the pseudo-skeptic's) game here.
> What you wrote is proof of microevolution, not mAcroevolution. For
> macroevolution, science needs a huge leap of faith.
Nope, see the extract below...
I'll leave this argument to the biologist among us:
--- extract from earlier thread...
In article <bb7mvi$1v58$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
"Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>>> > In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
>>> > 2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
>>> > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
>>> > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
>>> > science is that certain.
>>
>> Has it indeed?
Yes, it has.
>> The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any
reasonable doubt
>> is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain
traits to
>> deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
No. Darwin had no valid concept of genetics, let alone population
genetics, so he certainly couldn't have made the distinction between
micro- and macro-evolution.
>> Then he postulated macro-evolution
No. Micro- and macro-evolution are concepts first articulated by
Richard Goldschmidt, about 70 years after Darwin published the
_Origin_.
>> - where one species can evolve into a
>> completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
>> sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of
evidence in the
>> fossil record of these gradual changes.
Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
transitions between many species, including our own.
>> The infamous 'missing link' between
>> pre-humans and humans has not been found.
Define "pre-human" and "human". We have a good record of a pattern
of near continuous morphological change in the human lineage. One of
the most amusing observations I've seen is that creationists
typically make this claim, that there is a discrete boundary between
human and non-human, yet no two of them seem to be able to draw that
boundary at the same place.
>> No skeleton with an
>> almost-opposable thumb.
Nobody expects such a thing in the hominid lineage. That would be an
attribute of a pre-APE species.
>> Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
>> half-way to becoming another species.
Of course not. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "half-way"
between species.
ALL species are transitional in some sense. We have lovely lineages
within many groups -- hominids, whales, horses, for instance. I
simply do not understand how anyone can look at the assemblages
found for whales, as an example, and claim that no one has found
transitional forms. It really requires a kind of willful, ignorant
denial.
>> Macro-evolution remains an
>> unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
>> schools.
Completely wrong again. Macroevolution is an observed phenomenon.
What we lack right now is a good theory for it. Microevolution is
*part* of it, but there's more to it than that.
--- ends.
> And how did a sophisticated instrument such as the human eye reach its
> sophistication if only a small random mutation would have certainly
> damaged it beyond any possible repair by further (again) random
> mutations? How did the Bombardier beetle develop such a formidable
> chemical weapon without exterminating itself?
You're overlooking the obvious fact that not all mutations are harmful.
As to the genesis of the modern eye, this is covered in detail in
Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker", and I've summarised it before on
this newsgroup. Google it if you're interested, I can't be bothered to
type it all in again.
If I knew anough biology I could probably show the same kind of process
there.
> Of course, the above "blows" against evolutionary theory will be never
> be sufficient to convince any serious pseudo-skeptic of today, but if
> such a skeptic is the least bit open-minded, they will dig up the
> necessary information themselves and realize the mistakes they have
> made.
As I hope you will do (with reference to the eye).
Nonsense. Even the Bishop of Durham (quite a prestigious post in the
English religious heirarchy) has said that "there is no rational reason
to suppose that God exists".
> If we doubt it, the question
> is, can we imagine what intelligence is required to make a human being
> or even an animal?
See above. Evolution explains it all.
> Aren't contemporary movements of thought such as transhumanism more
> than very arrogant about our understanding of the biological
> constructions, when in fact any scientist will tell you that we have
> not even begun to understand, let alone control, a millionth of a
> percent of the total that exists?
Did you know that 87.3% of statistics are made up?
> Is man only an inferior product of
> blind physical laws, that, by presupposition, somehow got us there,
> and are we knowledgeable enough to implement our techno-futuristic
> views of replacing our brains with our own supercomputers, our
> vascular system with a more efficient one by our standards, etc.
> Shouldn't we first remember that our best minds have failed to create
> even the most rudimentary biological cell...
Watch this space. No-one has seriously tried yet; but that's probably
about to change. See www.newscientist.com, last weeks issue.
> Regarding creationism, There is a lot of evidence that does not rest
> on scientific dogmatism and does confirm creationism beyond any
> reasonable doubt.
ROTFLMAO
> Statistics studies on elementary biological building
> blocks can prove conclusively that life as we know it is a statistical
> monstrosity, an absolute impossibility to occur in any remotely
> reasonable time frame.
I've seen these "statistics" - generally they show an almost
supernatural misunderstanding of how evolution, for example, actually works.
> Knowing that spontanous creation is false, the
> only other choice except evolution is that that has been supernatural
> creation, and we, humans, are the result of highly intelligent
> creation more than any other biological species.
See above.
> Now evolutionists
> have all but abandoned Darwin's original theory in favor of theories
> like punctuated equilibrium, which are just more elaborate
> reiterations of the original, attempting (unsuccessfully) to come to
> terms with discrepancies such as the the lack of transitional fossils
> and the sudden Cambrian explosion of species out of apparently
> nowhere.
> Did you know that in Chapter 4, Origin of Species, Darwin used "is
> supposed to", "may have been", "perhaps", "may", "may still be" and
> other similar phrases at least 187 times?
Oh no, that _proves_ it's wrong!
Precision in speech is a characteristic of good science.
> This is yours and ours science! But is it science at all? Of course,
> it would be wise today, if you wanted to secure a PhD in biology or
> even chemistry, and all the accompanying prestige from the title, not
> to openly revolt against the authorities. Do so and at best you'll be
> dropped from studying or teaching, and your name smeared as a crackpot
> and a fringe researcher. I have a personal acquaintance with high
> credentials (long-term PhD and many published papers) who got smeared
> as a result of only thinking differently, against the Modern Church of
> Scientism. I can only imagine what could have happened if he tried to
> show them that he could get objective evidence of the material world
> through OBE travels.
I'm sure the million dollars he would have got from Randi would have
soothed his ego.
> Alfred Wallace, Darwin's contemporary, also knew better, but was
> ignored. He supported most of Darwin's theory, having developing one
> in parallel with Darwin, but deemed it impossible that the leap from a
> monkey's primitive thought to the conceptual thinking of a human being
> could have ever happened without the intervention of a superior
> intelligence.
"Deemed"?
Not "proved" then?
>
> "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science
> becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
> universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which
> our modest powers must feel humble."
> -- Albert Einstein
You /do/ know that Einstein was an atheist, don't you?
--
=======================================================================
= David - Visit www.thehungersite.com
= Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing
=======================================================================
Ian H Spedding
vessel...@hotmail.com says...
[...]
> Let's see! Microevolution like change of the the color of wings is due
> to change in allele frequencies, which in turn change due to
> mutations. Outside stimuli change species to adapt better to their
> surroundings, but there is a limit to this by design of each species.
> No species has ever been PROVEN to transit from one to another, no
> moth has been found to become anything else but a moth! No amount of
> scientific condescension on anyone's part can be a substitute for
> lacking scientific evidence. I start hating to use the word
> scientific, it has been very polluted to actually mean
> pseudo-scientific.
I posted the URL of the web page on the talk.origins archive site
which listed four examples of speciation. It _has_ been observed
whether you are prepared to look at the evidence or not.
> It is crucial that microevolution and macroevolution not be confused
> (another less frequent confusion is between growth and
> macroevolution), it is exactly that confusion which sows doubt about
> any intelligent design of species in the minds of children in schools
> and even grown-ups in universities. Macroevolution must be taught as
> just another theory to consider, not fact, if things are going to
> start being taught the right way, and truly open-minded people are
> going to walk away from the instruction benches with rich
> understanding of Nature.
Macroevolution is a well-established part of the theory. The
evidence is there for anyone who wants to look at it.
> Charles Darwin unwillingly admitted in his seminal work, "Origin of
> Species":
> "Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot
> prove that a single species has been changed."
Darwin's book was published in the 1850s. Science has progressed
a little since then.
> What is the basic claim of evolutionists, and is it so difficult to
> disprove it for the average person, without brain surgery or rocket
> science? Note I am not using the word Darwinists, since they are not
> really Darwinists, but only base their current theories on Darwin. The
> claim is that through macroevolution, man and all other living
> organisms have evolved from a primitive life form by means of a vast
> number of lucky mutations, and they
> are the only source of new genetic information. But what do mutations
> really do? They are, for sure, known to cause cancer. I hope that you
> also know what DNA repair is, the mechanism which fixes mutated
> sections of DNA by cutting them out of chromosomes and replacing them
> with a non-mutated section. People ill from xenoderma pigmentosa for
> example, have inactive DNA repair, and they eventually die from
> mutations caused by plain sunlight. After prolonged exposure, their
> skin becomes cancerous and kills the whole body.
So you admit mutations occur? That's a start.
The fact that most mutations are either harmful or have no
detectable effect is well-known but, if you think about it, it's
only the beneficial ones that are likely to be passed on because
they improve the individual's chances of survival. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to understand that.
> And how did a sophisticated instrument such as the human eye reach its
> sophistication if only a small random mutation would have certainly
> damaged it beyond any possible repair by further (again) random
> mutations? How did the Bombardier beetle develop such a formidable
> chemical weapon without exterminating itself?
A possible evolutionary pathway for the eye is set out in some
detail in Richard Dawkins's book "The Blind Watchmaker".
The Bombardier beetle's chemical weapon is composed of two
naturally-occurring compounds that are also used for other
purposes and which the beetle's body can cope with comfortably.
They don't react violently with each other if they are just mixed
together either. The beetle has to add a catalyst to the mix to
get it going when it squirts it out. This is no more a problem
for evolution than the eye.
> Of course, the above "blows" against evolutionary theory will be never
> be sufficient to convince any serious pseudo-skeptic of today, but if
> such a skeptic is the least bit open-minded, they will dig up the
> necessary information themselves and realize the mistakes they have
> made. Arguments will do very little to prove or disprove the truth,
> except announce certain facts to those who may be unaware of their
> existence at all.
If you are the least bit honest you will look at the available
evidence rather than simply parroting the standard - and
discredited - creationist criticisms.
> Several years ago, I have been a firm believer in the truth of
> evolution, and know and continue following all the "unshakeable"
> evidence I was cheating myself into believing back them. Some of it,
> wasn't I curious enough to investigate it to the very bottom (not what
> seems to be the bottom), and beyond scientific journals and textbooks,
> would have surely led me to be a member of the skeptics that try to
> dignify this newsgroup. Now I think that the first evolutionists have
> simply performed a move from a religion,
> based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, to another religion
> based on total lack of evidence for macroevolution. The first
> Darwinists could have had an excuse for their conclusion, it may be
> said that they did not have sufficient scientific data, although even
> that could be debated. Subsequent generations of researchers, however,
> had not had excuse -- instead of disproving Darwin, they seem to have
> comfortably dispensed of the concept of God as a Superior
> Intelligence. Darwin at least thought that God designed Earth as well
> as the mechanisms through which God's biological creations follow the
> evolutionary patterns.
I see, so you have abandoned evolution because it lacks evidence
but believe in a God for which there is no evidence at all. In
spite of your claim to have studied the science, the evidence of
your own words suggest that you haven't looked into it very
deeply at all.
> It think I would not go wrong if I say that when nowadays people think
> of God, they think of religion. But God should not go hand in hand
> with religion. Staunch Biblical creationists would be highly unlikely
> to manage to prove how God created the Earth in 6 days, but if the
> illogical distortions of religion are shed, and only pure logic
> remains, we must acknowledge God exists. If we doubt it, the question
> is, can we imagine what intelligence is required to make a human being
> or even an animal?
What is the logical proof for the existence of God?
> Aren't contemporary movements of thought such as transhumanism more
> than very arrogant about our understanding of the biological
> constructions, when in fact any scientist will tell you that we have
> not even begun to understand, let alone control, a millionth of a
> percent of the total that exists? Is man only an inferior product of
> blind physical laws, that, by presupposition, somehow got us there,
> and are we knowledgeable enough to implement our techno-futuristic
> views of replacing our brains with our own supercomputers, our
> vascular system with a more efficient one by our standards, etc.
> Shouldn't we first remember that our best minds have failed to create
> even the most rudimentary biological cell...
Scientists are actually more aware than most of our physical
limitations and how much we still have to learn. And downloading
our minds into supercomputers is just science-fiction not science
for the moment.
> Regarding creationism, There is a lot of evidence that does not rest
> on scientific dogmatism and does confirm creationism beyond any
> reasonable doubt. Statistics studies on elementary biological building
> blocks can prove conclusively that life as we know it is a statistical
> monstrosity, an absolute impossibility to occur in any remotely
> reasonable time frame. Knowing that spontanous creation is false, the
> only other choice except evolution is that that has been supernatural
> creation, and we, humans, are the result of highly intelligent
> creation more than any other biological species. Now evolutionists
> have all but abandoned Darwin's original theory in favor of theories
> like punctuated equilibrium, which are just more elaborate
> reiterations of the original, attempting (unsuccessfully) to come to
> terms with discrepancies such as the the lack of transitional fossils
> and the sudden Cambrian explosion of species out of apparently
> nowhere.
In the first place, the theory of evolution does not try to
explain the origins of life, that particular field of study is
called abiogenesis.
In the second place, nobody has proposed that life suddenly
popped up out of nowhere. Research is directed towards
discovering how simple, basic chemicals could combine under known
physical laws into ever more complex compounds from which self-
replicating structures could eventually emerge. It hasn't been
demnostrated yet but that doesn't mean it can't happen. For the
moment, we just don't know.
> Did you know that in Chapter 4, Origin of Species, Darwin used "is
> supposed to", "may have been", "perhaps", "may", "may still be" and
> other similar phrases at least 187 times?
You can't accuse evolution of being some sort of quasi-religion
and then complain that its founder goes out of his way to avoid
being dogmatic in his writings. Try to be consistent.
> This is yours and ours science! But is it science at all? Of course,
> it would be wise today, if you wanted to secure a PhD in biology or
> even chemistry, and all the accompanying prestige from the title, not
> to openly revolt against the authorities. Do so and at best you'll be
> dropped from studying or teaching, and your name smeared as a crackpot
> and a fringe researcher. I have a personal acquaintance with high
> credentials (long-term PhD and many published papers) who got smeared
> as a result of only thinking differently, against the Modern Church of
> Scientism. I can only imagine what could have happened if he tried to
> show them that he could get objective evidence of the material world
> through OBE travels.
If he'd actually got objective evidence his critics would
probably have listened because that's the best answer to smear
tactics. But assume from what you write that this acquaintance
doesn't have the evidence.
> Alfred Wallace, Darwin's contemporary, also knew better, but was
> ignored. He supported most of Darwin's theory, having developing one
> in parallel with Darwin, but deemed it impossible that the leap from a
> monkey's primitive thought to the conceptual thinking of a human being
> could have ever happened without the intervention of a superior
> intelligence.
So what? Both Darwin and Wallace got some things wrong. They were
scientists not prophets.
[...]
> In any case, God is not an idiot.
Maybe not, but some of his followers are.
Cl.Massé
> > where persecuted as such. The Nazis believed in nothing, and have
> > no link with the Catholic church at all. Nazism is based on a
> > scientific theory
"Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> a écrit dans le message news:
pRzDa.49834$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> I think that maybe you should go and restudy your history then. Maybe
> you should go and research the pope's apology for doing it.
You're nice, but my country have been occupied by the nazis. I
certainly know more than you about that part of history.
The pope didn't opposed to the nazis, that's why he apologised. He
didn't support them, and still less, he wasn't their mastermind.
They are many people who collaborated with the nazis and handed Jews
over, including Russians, who were not too much Catholic at that time.
The handicapped persons and the Gypsies were persecuted by exactly the
same way, and they were Christian.
Carnac
> pRzDa.49834$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > I think that maybe you should go and restudy your history then. Maybe
> > you should go and research the pope's apology for doing it.
>
> You're nice, but my country have been occupied by the nazis. I
> certainly know more than you about that part of history.
Maybe you've just been blinded by the church about those issues, such as
your denial of evolutionary 'evidence'. :P
> The pope didn't opposed to the nazis, that's why he apologised. He
> didn't support them, and still less, he wasn't their mastermind.
Pious also had a massive hand in it by preaching anti-semeticism.
Cl.Massé
> > certainly know more than you about that part of history.
"Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> a écrit dans le message news:
YqwEa.51482$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Maybe you've just been blinded by the church about those issues, such
> as your denial of evolutionary 'evidence'. :P
Do you think it is a smart answer? Nobody from the Church ever spoke me
about that, and to nobody too. It isn't an issue in the Church, merely.
And besides, I'm even not a believer, and your opinion on my thoughts
about evolution is simply wrong. Perhaps are they too subtle for you.
> > The pope didn't opposed to the nazis, that's why he apologised. He
> > didn't support them, and still less, he wasn't their mastermind.
> Pious also had a massive hand in it by preaching anti-semeticism.
More than anyone at that time, on a religious basis? I am under the
impression the nazis made the worst work and were the masterminds, and
they weren't religious. Aren't you preaching anti-Christianity here?
You won't manage with sneer and name calling with me.
Don't you think there are only two types of people: the ridiculous,
nasty, and credulous ones, and the superior, sane, and smart ones like
you?