Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
wrote:
: In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >wrote:
: >
: >: In <mmd1e49hgpb8tan3d...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: >: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: >: What actually happens is that genetic and morpologic change takes
: >: >: place in populations all the time. We observe it taking place at
: >: >: rates that are sometimes surprisingly fast:
: >: >: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
: >: >
: >: > We already know adaptation takes place. You've only shown
: >: >an example of lizards producing more lizards. This is a far cry
: >: >from the molecules to man version of evolution they believe in.
: >: >Please show an observation and/or a test/verification of
: >: >populations of lizards producing, over generations, animals that
: >: >are clearly no longer lizards at all.
: >:
: >: This *is* a test which verifies that morphological change can take
: >: place very quickly - orders of magnitude faster than we usually detect
: >: in the fossil record.
: >
: > No, it's a test that populations of lizards can produce
: >more lizards over generations that evolved/adapted but *remained
: >lizards*.
: >
: > Now as them to show an observation and/or
: >test/verification of the version of evolution they are talking
: >about: that populations of lizard can produce, over generations,
: >animals that are clearly no longer lizards at all.
: >
: >:
: >: The whale sequence Kermit provided is an excellent verification of how
: >: radically body plans can change over time.
: >: Cetaceans:
: >: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
: >
: > No, it's beliefs they come up with looking at dead bones.
:
: Did you read what I wrote below? It looks as if you stopped right
: there. It contains some questions for you.
:
: >Not an observation or a test/verification of such a thing
: >actually happening, just reasons why you believe it does.
:
: Let me repeat one piece: If you want a real-time example of an X
: changing to a Y where X and Y are categories for schoolchildren, then
: you are asking for something we *don't* "believe can happen" any more
: than sailboats can circumnavigate the world in half an hour.
:
:
: > If
: >reasons are enough, here are reasons we believe God exists and
: >did exactly what He said He did.
: >
: >www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
: >www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/flood.asp
: >www.icr.org
: >www.creationontheweb.com
: >
: > But they'd be quick to point out "provide an observation
: >and/or test/verification of God or God actually doing those
: >things". Bingo. Double standard. The molecules to man version of
: >evolution is a belief, nothing more.
:
: I have no interest in discussing your religion.
:
: Please address the section below.
It has been addressed. You cannot address or refute what
single-handedly debunks the fish to man version of evolution
presented above as being a false version: it's not observable,
and it's also not testable/verifiable. It's that simple.
:
: >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
: >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
believe what you believe. It's not a fish to man version of
evolution *taking place*, just an imagining it does by believing
that's what those bones tell you, in spite of science repeatedly
showing observations, tests AND verifications that it *never*
happens.
: >:
: >: So this "observation" or "test/verification" that you are demanding;
: >: you really mean something directly observed and reliably recorded,
: >: yes? Meaning pretty much something over the last few hundred years,
: >: since careful observation and recording of the natural world wasn't
: >: done all that much previously.
Exactly. Past that it becomes a belief that what anyone
claims is true.
: >:
: >: And the degree of observed change must be sufficient for a small child
: >: to place the new population in a different category than the old, yes?
A different category than that which science repeatedly
shows is possible, yes. Fish to land mammal? Never observed, not
testable, not verifiable, just believed to happen.
: >: You've blithely dismissed observations of fundamental and radical
: >: changes in bacteria and a new physical structure in a sizeable
: >: vertebrate.
Bacteria producing bacteria. Show bacteria producing
organisms that are clearly not bacteria at all, which is the
radical fish to man version of evolution they are talking about.
: >:
: >: Curiously, you still are asking for " an actual observation of what
: >: you believe taking place, or a test/verification of what you believe
: >: can happen taking place".
Curiously, do you *not* ask for an "actual observation of
God, or a test/verification of God"?
: >:
: >: This is curious because anyone who understands evolution even slightly
: >: would say that the kind of change you're asking for does not happen on
: >: timescales of a few human generations or even a few hundred years.
Your version of evolution apparently takes that long.
What God did took place thousands of years ago too - does this
excuse Him from the fact that what He did is not observable
and/or testable/verifiable either? Of course not. Why the double
standard? The fact is, even by your own admission, what you
believe is not observable and/or testable/verifiable. That fact
single-handedly shows how the fish to man version of evolution is
a belief and nothing more.
: To
: >: use your language, we don't 'believe that can happen' in the time you
: >: demand.
If no one can show it happens, then it's just an
unobservable and untestable/unverifiable belief that it does.
: >:
: >: So if you're going to ask about what we "believe take[s] place" or
: >: "believe can happen", then stop objecting that our examples aren't
: >: good enough.
That's just it - they are not *examples*. Examples are
actual observations and/or tests/verifications of their fish to
man version of evolution. All they ever provide are reasons they
have that belief. We have a ton of reasons too to believe in God.
Is just having reasons now enough to claim God is scientific fact
now too? Of course not. Why the double standard?
: If you want a real-time example of an X changing to a Y
: >: where X and Y are categories for schoolchildren, then you are asking
: >: for something we *don't* "believe can happen" any more than sailboats
: >: can circumnavigate the world in half an hour. And when we don't
: >: produce a 30-minute video which simultaneously depicts the entire
: >: world and the sailboat going around it, you insist that this
: >: discredits the entire notion of circumnavigation.
Faulty example. It's clear that a sailboat would continue
sailing until it went around the world as all it has to do is
keep sailing. We've also had people physically sail around the
world. Such a thing has been observed, is testable AND
verifiable.
A version more accurate to your version of fish to man
evolution would be that a boat would now sprout wings and fly if
it ran into a limitation of running out of water and had to go
across land to finish the journey. Now you'd be forced to provide
an observation of a fishing boat ever sprouting wings on it's
own, otherwise it's just a belief that it would do such a thing
to continue on.
Jack Dominey
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>wrote:
<snip>
Let me leave in two earlier sections here. They're important.
>: Let me repeat one piece: If you want a real-time example of an X
>: changing to a Y where X and Y are categories for schoolchildren, then
>: you are asking for something we *don't* "believe can happen" any more
>: than sailboats can circumnavigate the world in half an hour.
Note especially the last three words.
>: I have no interest in discussing your religion.
Note that entire sentence.
>: Please address the section below.
>
> It has been addressed. You cannot address or refute what
>single-handedly debunks the fish to man version of evolution
>presented above as being a false version: it's not observable,
>and it's also not testable/verifiable. It's that simple.
Something here is simple, all right.
>: >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
>: >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>
> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
>believe what you believe. It's not a fish to man version of
>evolution *taking place*, just an imagining it does by believing
>that's what those bones tell you, in spite of science repeatedly
>showing observations, tests AND verifications that it *never*
>happens.
There's a special word for physical things you can examine which
support or rule out certain conclusions. See if you can guess what
that word is. Hint: Seven letters, starts with "e".
>: >: So this "observation" or "test/verification" that you are demanding;
>: >: you really mean something directly observed and reliably recorded,
>: >: yes? Meaning pretty much something over the last few hundred years,
>: >: since careful observation and recording of the natural world wasn't
>: >: done all that much previously.
>
> Exactly. Past that it becomes a belief that what anyone
>claims is true.
>
>: >:
>: >: And the degree of observed change must be sufficient for a small child
>: >: to place the new population in a different category than the old, yes?
>
> A different category than that which science repeatedly
>shows is possible, yes. Fish to land mammal? Never observed, not
>testable, not verifiable, just believed to happen.
It's "believed" because of that e-word.
>: >: You've blithely dismissed observations of fundamental and radical
>: >: changes in bacteria and a new physical structure in a sizeable
>: >: vertebrate.
>
> Bacteria producing bacteria. Show bacteria producing
>organisms that are clearly not bacteria at all, which is the
>radical fish to man version of evolution they are talking about.
And we're back to the samll child demands again.
>: >: Curiously, you still are asking for " an actual observation of what
>: >: you believe taking place, or a test/verification of what you believe
>: >: can happen taking place".
>
> Curiously, do you *not* ask for an "actual observation of
>God, or a test/verification of God"?
Which part of "I am not interested in discussing your religion" was
too hard for you to understand?
>: >:
>: >: This is curious because anyone who understands evolution even slightly
>: >: would say that the kind of change you're asking for does not happen on
>: >: timescales of a few human generations or even a few hundred years.
>
> Your version of evolution apparently takes that long.
Meaning what? That you acknowledge that big fat glamorous changes
like you're demanding do, in fact, take hundreds of thousands if not
millions of years?
<snip more religion>
>The fact is, even by your own admission, what you
>believe is not observable and/or testable/verifiable.
I've admitted no such thing. Whether a process can be observed start
to finish in real time has no bearing on whether it is testable and
verifiable. You will never observe electrons moving through a
circuit, but you can test and verify it all day long.
>That fact
>single-handedly shows how the fish to man version of evolution is
>a belief and nothing more.
It's a belief like heliocentrism.
>: To
>: >: use your language, we don't 'believe that can happen' in the time you
>: >: demand.
>
> If no one can show it happens, then it's just an
>unobservable and untestable/unverifiable belief that it does.
>: >:
>: >: So if you're going to ask about what we "believe take[s] place" or
>: >: "believe can happen", then stop objecting that our examples aren't
>: >: good enough.
> That's just it - they are not *examples*.
Yes they are. They are examples of what we 'believe take[s] place'.
What you want, but will not explicitly ask for because it shows your
position is intellectually bankrupt even to folks like yourself, is to
be shown everything that *has* taken place.
I'm guessing you have a hard time with plate tectonics, too.
>Examples are
>actual observations and/or tests/verifications of their fish to
>man version of evolution. All they ever provide are reasons they
>have that belief.
Yes, *damn* us for showing you evidence!
<snipping more religion>
>: If you want a real-time example of an X changing to a Y
>: >: where X and Y are categories for schoolchildren, then you are asking
>: >: for something we *don't* "believe can happen" any more than sailboats
>: >: can circumnavigate the world in half an hour. And when we don't
>: >: produce a 30-minute video which simultaneously depicts the entire
>: >: world and the sailboat going around it, you insist that this
>: >: discredits the entire notion of circumnavigation.
>
> Faulty example. It's clear that a sailboat would continue
>sailing until it went around the world as all it has to do is
>keep sailing.
And populations change and keep changing. Once speciation is
established, there's nothing to stop further evolution.
>We've also had people physically sail around the
>world. Such a thing has been observed, is testable AND
>verifiable.
Really? You've seen this happen? You watched it yourself? How did
you test it? How did you verify it?
> A version more accurate to your version of fish to man
>evolution would be that a boat would now sprout wings and fly if
>it ran into a limitation of running out of water and had to go
>across land to finish the journey. Now you'd be forced to provide
>an observation of a fishing boat ever sprouting wings on it's
>own, otherwise it's just a belief that it would do such a thing
>to continue on.
Yes, land is a barrier to boats. You think there's a barrier to
evolution. What is this barrier? Don't give me the same demands for
a change from one kind of creature to another - that's just a matter
of distance. What tells a living population that it can change only
so much and no more?
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Gregory A Greenman
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
> wrote:
>
> : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
> : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
> : >wrote:
> : >
> :
> : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>
> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
> believe what you believe.
This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
bad thing in your book.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Sapient Fridge
Greenman <s...@sig.below> writes
>Gabriel wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>> wrote:
>>
>> : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
>> : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>> : >wrote:
>> : >
>> :
>> : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
>> : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>>
>> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
>> believe what you believe.
>
>
>This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
>evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
>bad thing in your book.
We have more evidence than just "dead bones" though. Morphology and DNA
sequences for a start. Gabriel won't look at any evidence though, in
order to continue his declaration that it doesn't exist.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Gregory A Greenman
> In message <MPG.235db2986...@news.newsguy.com>, Gregory A
> Greenman <s...@sig.below> writes
> >Gabriel wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
> >> : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> :
> >> : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
> >> : >wrote:
> >> : >
> >> :
> >> : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
> >> : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
> >>
> >> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
> >> believe what you believe.
> >
> >
> >This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
> >evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
> >bad thing in your book.
>
> We have more evidence than just "dead bones" though. Morphology and DNA
> sequences for a start. Gabriel won't look at any evidence though, in
> order to continue his declaration that it doesn't exist.
Right. I didn't mean to imply that fossils were the only evidence.
Rather that the evidence is the only reason for our acceptance of
evolution. Rereading the context, I can see how that was unclear.
It's interesting that Gabriel refers to fossils as dead bones. I
pointed out to him in another post that they are not the same
thing. Not all dead bones are fossils. The minimum age to be
considered a fossil is 10,000 years. Bones more recent than that
are just bones. Also, several other things can be fossils. Teeth,
sometimes soft tissue, wood, tracks, coprolites, for example.
I guess that if you want to be a fundy, you just have to dedicate
yourself to ignorance and he does that quite well.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Sapient Fridge wrote:
> > Greenman <s...@sig.below> writes
> > >Gabriel wrote:
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> : In <qslae4dil91ub8th82cqeilursn5vdt...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
> > >> : <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> :
> > >> : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>
> > >> : >wrote:
> > >> : >
> > >> :
> > >> : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
> > >> : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>
> > >> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
> > >> believe what you believe.
>
> > >This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
> > >evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
> > >bad thing in your book.
>
> > We have more evidence than just "dead bones" though. Morphology and DNA
> > sequences for a start. Gabriel won't look at any evidence though, in
> > order to continue his declaration that it doesn't exist.
>
> Right. I didn't mean to imply that fossils were the only evidence.
> Rather that the evidence is the only reason for our acceptance of
> evolution. Rereading the context, I can see how that was unclear.
>
> It's interesting that Gabriel refers to fossils as dead bones. I
> pointed out to him in another post that they are not the same
> thing. Not all dead bones are fossils. The minimum age to be
> considered a fossil is 10,000 years. Bones more recent than that
> are just bones. Also, several other things can be fossils. Teeth,
> sometimes soft tissue, wood, tracks, coprolites, for example.
Actually, bones are relatively rare as fossils. The overwhelming
majority are shells of invertebrates.
RF
>
> I guess that if you want to be a fundy, you just have to dedicate
> yourself to ignorance and he does that quite well.
>
> --
> Greghttp://www.spencerbooksellers.com
wf3h
>
> That's just it - they are not *examples*. Examples are
> actual observations and/or tests/verifications of their fish to
> man version of evolution. All they ever provide are reasons they
> have that belief. We have a ton of reasons too to believe in God.
> Is just having reasons now enough to claim God is scientific fact
> now too? Of course not. Why the double standard?
because we can test evolution in the lab. we do NOT have to test EVERY
prediction of evolution in the lab. if ALL of science had to be lab
science, we'd still be stuck in galileo's time
when...ahem...creationists thought 'god did it' was science.
evolution is observed. it causes changes in populations. applied to
the real world...as science generally is...it leads to the conclusion
that evolution causes speciation.
that's how science works.
religion, OTOH, has a 2000 year history of being 100% wrong in
predictions about the natural world. that's why 'god did it' isn't
science.
>
> A version more accurate to your version of fish to man
> evolution would be that a boat would now sprout wings and fly if
> it ran into a limitation of running out of water and had to go
> across land to finish the journey. Now you'd be forced to provide
> an observation of a fishing boat ever sprouting wings on it's
> own, otherwise it's just a belief that it would do such a thing
> to continue on.
we have a mechanism for a 'sailboat sprouting wings' so to speak..it's
genetics. and differential reproduction.
we have no mechanism for 'god did it'.
Gabriel
<s...@sig.below> wrote:
: Gabriel wrote:
: > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: > : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: > : >wrote:
: > : >
: > :
: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: >
: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: > believe what you believe.
:
:
: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: bad thing in your book.
Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
Others come to very different reasons when looking at the exact
same dead bones, which is the point. Until anyone shows a single
observation and/or test/verification of the fish to man version
of evolution (which no one has), then there's only faith that
your reasons are "the" reasons.
John Harshman
fossils. Most of it comes from examining the genomes and other features
of living species.
I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?
wf3h
wrote:
> I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
> to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?-
what is he, some kind of prevert or something?
Uriel
How about a clear (not speculative) path that shows evolution actually
happens?
When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
And slight modification to the same blueprint can be used to build many
different 'kinds' of structures.Ask any car maker, home builder or
manufacturer. A simple blue print that requires slight modifications of
design to get a new product is efficient.
Do you actually believe that General Motors builds separate cars from
separate blueprints?
The Buick Regal shared the same "Colonnade" pillared hardtop roofline and
greenhouse (window area) with the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass
Supreme as well as the lower-priced Buick Century.It was called the G-Body
and originated from the very same blueprint and design. Motors and
transmissions (as well as a plethora of parts) were interchangeable (eyes,
ears, digestive systems), and, Chevy rims will most likely fit any other GM
car.
Man seems to be mimicking God regarding his ability to design. Not suprising
since we are made in his image.
"But Adman! YOUR creator and God did a lousy job designing!" you say? No.
God's creation has been corrupted and I have given evidence of this from
several assorted ancient texts in several languages including the hebrew
bible. Many simply do not want to accept what ancient man has already handed
down to us as knowledge regarding this. Many simply want to reinvent the
wheel while ignoring what we already know
Hope this helps..
John Harshman
What would you count as clear (not speculative)? And what would you
count as evolution?
> When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
> similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
Silly, gnomes aren't human. This is one word you really need to learn
how to spell, lest others be confused. Gnome: little ceramic
pointy-hatted guy in your garden. Genome: DNA.
> And slight modification to the same blueprint can be used to build many
> different 'kinds' of structures.Ask any car maker, home builder or
> manufacturer. A simple blue print that requires slight modifications of
> design to get a new product is efficient.
>
> Do you actually believe that General Motors builds separate cars from
> separate blueprints?
>
> The Buick Regal shared the same "Colonnade" pillared hardtop roofline and
> greenhouse (window area) with the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass
> Supreme as well as the lower-priced Buick Century.It was called the G-Body
> and originated from the very same blueprint and design. Motors and
> transmissions (as well as a plethora of parts) were interchangeable (eyes,
> ears, digestive systems), and, Chevy rims will most likely fit any other GM
> car.
>
> Man seems to be mimicking God regarding his ability to design. Not suprising
> since we are made in his image.
Sorry, but you've tried this analogy before, and it doesn't work. Re-use
of parts doesn't explain the nested hierarchy of the genome. First, the
same parts aren't re-used. They're slightly different even in closely
related species like humans and chimps. On average they're 1.3%
different. It's not just the parts that are functionally important that
are different, or the parts that aren't. Everything is different,
whether theres a reason or not. But more importantly, all the parts are
different among species in similar ways, i.e. all the different parts of
the genome make up a common nested hierarchy. You just can't account for
that by "common designer" or even "common blueprints".
> "But Adman! YOUR creator and God did a lousy job designing!" you say? No.
> God's creation has been corrupted and I have given evidence of this from
> several assorted ancient texts in several languages including the hebrew
> bible.
Sorry, but ancient texts are not evidence of anything other than of what
ancient texts say. You need empirical evidence if you want to play with
science.
> Many simply do not want to accept what ancient man has already handed
> down to us as knowledge regarding this. Many simply want to reinvent the
> wheel while ignoring what we already know
Oddly, none of this ancient knowledge turns out to be useful in
understanding the world. It can only be fit into what we know by
imaginative readings, and it's never resulted in any real scientific
discovery.
> Hope this helps..
Not in the slightest.
wf3h
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Gabriel wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:32:15 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
> >> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> >>> Gabriel wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In <qslae4dil91ub8th82cqeilursn5vdt...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
>
> Do you actually believe that General Motors builds separate cars from
> separate blueprints?
now he's comparing god to general motors. must be a republican.
creationism has no predictive value at all because it allows
everything. there's no scientific mechanism for a fish turning into a
buick. but creationism allows this. that's why it's not science
TomS
<O4LSk.64919$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Uriel stated..."
[...snip...]
>When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
>similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
>And slight modification to the same blueprint can be used to build many
>different 'kinds' of structures.Ask any car maker, home builder or
>manufacturer. A simple blue print that requires slight modifications of
>design to get a new product is efficient.
>
>Do you actually believe that General Motors builds separate cars from
>separate blueprints?
I'd suggest that "blueprint" is not the best of analogies to
the function of DNA.
A blueprint does not tell the maker how to carry out the
manufacturing process. A blueprint does specify the relative
position in space of the parts of thing that is being made. A
blueprint is generally not needed after the object is completed.
A blueprint does not have unused details that have been eliminated
from the finished product. A blueprint is not incorporated in the
finshed product.
DNA is more like a recipe, even though that analogy is rather
imperfect, too. Just about any analogy is misleading about the
function of DNA as a whole. DNA is rather unlike anything that
an intelligent, purposeful manufacturer uses.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
AC
Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:32:15 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
><s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
>: Gabriel wrote:
>: > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>: > wrote:
>: >
>: > : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
>: > : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > :
>: > : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>: > : >wrote:
>: > : >
>: > :
>: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
>: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>: >
>: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
>: > believe what you believe.
>:
>:
>: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
>: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
>: bad thing in your book.
>
> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how every branch of
science does that.
> Others come to very different reasons when looking at the exact
> same dead bones, which is the point.
What others? What "dead bones" are they looking at? Be specific here.
> Until anyone shows a single
> observation and/or test/verification of the fish to man version
> of evolution (which no one has), then there's only faith that
> your reasons are "the" reasons.
It's a damned good thing we've got thousands upon thousands of verifiable
observations in several branches of biology.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Cory Albrecht
He wants the fossils of every single one of your ancestors back to the
original sarcopterygian fish along with genetic assays of each individual.
Andrew
Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
about this is that you actually believe it.
Andrew
> Gabriel wrote:
>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>: Gabriel wrote:
>>: > : Jack Dominey wrote:
>>: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
>>: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
>>: >
>>: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
>>: > believe what you believe.
>>:
>>:
>>: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
>>: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
>>: bad thing in your book.
>>
>> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
>> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
>
> Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how
> every branch of science does that.
The problem is when speculative stories which are structured
according to the -biases- of the storyteller are built upon such
evidence. It is these stories which have brought deception on
those gullible enough to believe them.
Andrew
John Baker
wrote:
So you claim. And yet you can't come up with so much as the tiniest
shred of *real* evidence to support *your* story. Funny, that.....
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
Ye Old One
Yes.
> The sad thing
>about this is that you actually believe it.
What is sad about it?
>
>
>
--
Bob.
TimK
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:sqKdnScjXtrp_YDU...@earthlink.com...
> Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
> about this is that you actually believe it.
You've been corrected before on the difference between ancestry at the level
of the individual and some taxonomic level.
Ralph
They go back much further than the fish, Andrew, get used to it!
Ralph
The problem comes when the person to whom the story is told is too stupid to
understand it. When you learn what evolution is and how it works, come back
to see us. Until then you have nothing of importance to say.
Andre Lieven
> "AC" wrote in messagenews:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
Thank you for proving that the evidence-free bible, and the
utterances of it's believers, should then be safely and reasonably
ignored.
Andre
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
>> about this is that you actually believe it.
>
> They go back much further than the fish,
> Andrew, get used to it!
If that is true, then tell me where they go back to.
Andrew
You acknowledge - it is a story, and you have been told stories.
DJT
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:iJjTk.65368$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
They go back to primitive chordates, Eukaryotes, and ultimately
farther back than that, to the first living organism. For a much
better account of the branching of common descent, see Richard
Dawkins' book "The Ancestors Tale".
DJT
DJT
> "AC" wrote in messagenews:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
That's the usefullness of science. In science the "bias of the
storyteller" doesn't matter, as any explanation has to supported by
the evidence. If the story doesn't match reality, it's discarded.
The problem is ,that creationists tend to feel that there isn't any
way to determine which story is correct, so that one's personal bias
should determine what story to accept. Science deals with this
dilemma by using evidence as the means to determine which explanation
is most likely correct.
That's also why science has a much better track record of getting
results.
DJT
DJT
> "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:vIjTk.65367.
>
> > The problem comes when the person to whom the story
> > is told is too stupid to understand it.
>
> You acknowledge - it is a story, and you have been told stories.
Of course, with science, one can determine which "story" is more
likely to be correct. With creationism, it's just a matter of which
story you want to believe. With science it's the one that matches
the physical evidence. Not all stories are of equal worth, as
explanations for reality.
DJT
Garamond Lethe
Simple self-replicating molecules.
Try Iris Fry's _The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and
Scientific Overview_ for details.
Garamond Lethe
This may come as a shock, but some stories are true.
John Harshman
Back to the beginning of life, of course. We know very little before the
most recent common ancestor of all extant life, but that ancestor was
something like a bacterium. Things get mistier the closer you get to
that long-ago beginning. In contrast, the last 300 million years or so
are pretty clear. Your ancestors were fish, and later tetrapods, and
later amniotes, and later synapsids, and later therapsids, and later
mammals, and later primates, and later monkeys, and later apes. The
evidence for all this is overwhelming. I don't know why you think it's
sad. You don't like fish?
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>> Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
>>>> about this is that you actually believe it.
>>> They go back much further than the fish,
>>> Andrew, get used to it!
>>
>> If that is true, then tell me where they go back to.
>
> Back to the beginning of life, of course. We know very little before
> the most recent common ancestor of all extant life, but that ancestor
> was something like a bacterium. Things get mistier the closer you get
> to that long-ago beginning. In contrast, the last 300 million years or so
> are pretty clear. Your ancestors were fish, and later tetrapods, and later
> amniotes, and later synapsids, and later therapsids, and later mammals,
> and later primates, and later monkeys, and later apes. The evidence for
> all this is overwhelming.
Wow. You teach kids stuff like that, no wonder they act like
animals.
John Harshman
Of course they act like animals. They *are* animals. They have gap
junctions between cells, collagen deposited as extracellular matrix,
they eat, respire, show motility, etc. Now of course different species
of animals have different behaviors. Humans are rather different from
their closest relatives, chimps and gorillas, though in many ways
they're typical primates. But I suspect you have some kind of weird
mystical meaning intended by "act like animals".
Anyway, are you claiming we shouldn't teach science to kids?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
They are humans, they are also apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates,
chordates, animals and eukaryotes.
--
Bob.
Ralph
They do? Perhaps yours do. Mine never did nor do my grandchildren act that
way. You need to control your kids.
Ralph
They go back to the crack of your ass, you dimwitted creationist. Try this
site for starters:
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-beginning-of-life-and-amphiphilic-molecules/
Ralph
Of course. Let me introduce you to one of Merriam-Webster's definition of a
story: "2 a : an account of incidents or events b : a statement regarding
the facts pertinent to a situation in question..". If only you weren't so
stupid you could understand these stories. Let me help you out here, boy.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world but it will be a cold day in your hell
when you can get the best of me. As Walter Brennan used to say: no brag,
just fact".
TimK
Nice link!
Tiny Bulcher
I think he wants kids to act like vegetables.
TomS
<8uqdnRA3JYxSdYDU...@earthlink.com>, Andrew stated..."
Consider the alternatives:
1. Human bodies are so very much like those of chimps and other
apes because of purposeless laws of nature.
2. Human bodies are so very much like those of chimps and other
apes to fulfill some purposes of our intelligent designer(s).
In the first case, it would be rather like finding out that my
great-grandfather was a horse thief. If I found out that, I
wouldn't decide that I ought to be a horse thief. (I am sure
that I would be very bad at that line of work, anyway, even
though horse-thievery ran in the family.)
In the second case, would I be going against Divine Will not
to act like a chimp?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Cory Albrecht
No, the sad thing is that this is all you can do - make swipes of teh
"The sad thing is..." variety instead of actually showing some evidence
for your positions.
And yes, a few hundred million years ago my ancestors were fish.
Jim Lovejoy
news:9v6rh4p3m5miq0l08...@4ax.com:
From andrew's viewpoint?
It shows Cory is smarter than andrew.
A low bar, I know,
Kermit
wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > "John Harshman" wrote in messagenews:UAlTk.4976$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
If he is a typical fundamentalist, he wants to teach children that we
are the degenerate children of great ancestors, and that we are evil
by nature, and cannot control ourselves. Also, that the first human
was made of dirt. This is what I was taught.
This is *so much better than thinking that we are evolved descendants
of less intelligent ancestors, and that we have a nature which we can
understand by studying it - and which is appropriate for us. Also, the
first human was born of someone who was also human - that is, there
was no clear dividing line or great difference between u sand our
immediate ancestors. We grew out of the world, as an apple does from a
tree.
Fortunately, truth doesn't depend on what we want. It is what it is,
and can be discerned by studying it.
Kermit
Kermit
> "Cory Albrecht" <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:qp6uu5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
> > John Harshman wrote, on 2008-11-12 18:52:
> >> Gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:32:15 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
> >>> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> >>> : Gabriel wrote: : > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey
> >>> : > wrote:
> >>> : > : > : In <qslae4dil91ub8th82cqeilursn5vdt...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
> >>> : > : <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> : > : : > : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey
> >>> : > : >wrote:
> >>> : > : >
> >>> : > : : > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead
> >>> bones" without
> >>> : > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification. : > : > I
> >>> did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
> >>> : > believe what you believe.
> >>> : : : This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we
> >>> accept : evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would
> >>> be a : bad thing in your book.
>
> >>> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
> >>> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
> >>> Others come to very different reasons when looking at the exact
> >>> same dead bones, which is the point. Until anyone shows a single
> >>> observation and/or test/verification of the fish to man version
> >>> of evolution (which no one has), then there's only faith that
> >>> your reasons are "the" reasons.
>
> >> Actually, most of the evidence for "fish to man" doesn't come from
> >> fossils. Most of it comes from examining the genomes and other features
> >> of living species.
>
> >> I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
> >> to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?
>
> > He wants the fossils of every single one of your ancestors back to the
> > original sarcopterygian fish along with genetic assays of each individual.
>
I think he would be content with simply changing a fish fossil into a
human fossil.
> Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
> about this is that you actually believe it.
You think reality is determined by how important you think you are?
The universe was not made for you. Living a life while wallowing in
self-imposed ignorance is truly sad.
Kermit
John Baker
wrote:
As have you, my foolish friend. As have you. But unlike the ones in
your Bible, some stories are factual.
>
Gabriel
: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:14:53 -0500,
: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:32:15 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
: ><s...@sig.below> wrote:
: >
: >: Gabriel wrote:
: >: > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >: > wrote:
: >: >
: >: > : In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: >: > : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: > :
: >: > : >On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >: > : >wrote:
: >: > : >
: >: > :
: >: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
: >: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: >: >
: >: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: >: > believe what you believe.
: >:
: >:
: >: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: >: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: >: bad thing in your book.
: >
: > Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
: > dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
:
: Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how every branch of
: science does that.
:
: > Others come to very different reasons when looking at the exact
: > same dead bones, which is the point.
:
: What others? What "dead bones" are they looking at? Be specific here.
The same ones fish to man evolutionists look at.
:
: > Until anyone shows a single
: > observation and/or test/verification of the fish to man version
: > of evolution (which no one has), then there's only faith that
: > your reasons are "the" reasons.
:
: It's a damned good thing we've got thousands upon thousands of verifiable
: observations in several branches of biology.
Actually they don't have a single observation of the fish
to man version of evolution. We know, for example, that
mosquitoes will adapt and produce, over generations, more
mosquitoes that might have a changed diet or otherwise - this is
the normal version of evolution / adaptation - it's called
Speciation, and we know this takes place.
Contrast this with the imagined fish to man version of
evolution; for example, populations of mosquitoes will supposedly
produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
mosquitoes at all. Not one observation of such a thing.. not
testable.. not verifiable.. no matter what animal they pick. Not
science.
Gabriel
<andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
: "AC" wrote in message news:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
: > Gabriel wrote:
: >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
: >>: Gabriel wrote:
: >>: > : Jack Dominey wrote:
: >>: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
: >>: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: >>: >
: >>: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: >>: > believe what you believe.
: >>:
: >>:
: >>: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: >>: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: >>: bad thing in your book.
: >>
: >> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
: >> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
: >
: > Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how
: > every branch of science does that.
:
: The problem is when speculative stories which are structured
: according to the -biases- of the storyteller are built upon such
: evidence.
Bingo.
: It is these stories which have brought deception on
: those gullible enough to believe them.
:
:
: Andrew
:
:
Thurisaz the Einherjer
RUN FORREST RUN!
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Gabriel
wrote:
: John Harshman wrote:
: > Gabriel wrote:
: >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:32:15 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
: >> <s...@sig.below> wrote:
: >>
: >>> Gabriel wrote:
: >>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:33:51 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >>>> wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>> In <qslae4dil91ub8th8...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: >>>>> <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:17:33 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >>>>>> wrote:
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>>> Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones"
: >>>>>>> without saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: >>>>
: >>>> I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: >>>> believe what you believe.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: >>> evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: >>> bad thing in your book.
: >>
: >> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
: >> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
: >> Others come to very different reasons when looking at the exact
: >> same dead bones, which is the point. Until anyone shows a single
: >> observation and/or test/verification of the fish to man version
: >> of evolution (which no one has), then there's only faith that
: >> your reasons are "the" reasons.
: >>
: > Actually, most of the evidence for "fish to man" doesn't come from
: > fossils. Most of it comes from examining the genomes and other
: > features of living species.
: >
: > I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
: > to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?
:
: How about a clear (not speculative) path that shows evolution actually
: happens?
:
: When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
: similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
: And slight modification to the same blueprint can be used to build many
: different 'kinds' of structures.Ask any car maker, home builder or
: manufacturer. A simple blue print that requires slight modifications of
: design to get a new product is efficient.
:
: Do you actually believe that General Motors builds separate cars from
: separate blueprints?
:
: The Buick Regal shared the same "Colonnade" pillared hardtop roofline and
: greenhouse (window area) with the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass
: Supreme as well as the lower-priced Buick Century.It was called the G-Body
: and originated from the very same blueprint and design. Motors and
: transmissions (as well as a plethora of parts) were interchangeable (eyes,
: ears, digestive systems), and, Chevy rims will most likely fit any other GM
: car.
:
: Man seems to be mimicking God regarding his ability to design. Not suprising
: since we are made in his image.
:
: "But Adman! YOUR creator and God did a lousy job designing!" you say? No.
: God's creation has been corrupted and I have given evidence of this from
: several assorted ancient texts in several languages including the hebrew
: bible. Many simply do not want to accept what ancient man has already handed
: down to us as knowledge regarding this. Many simply want to reinvent the
: wheel while ignoring what we already know
:
: Hope this helps..
Couldn't have said it better myself. Exactly the sort of
logic that shows the evidence points more logically to creation
by design than the imagined fish to man version of evolution.
Gabriel
The genome is as much evidence of a common designer as it
is of the fish to man version of evolution, as is the fossil
record. In fact the fossil record more strongly supports creation
by design than their version of evolution.
:
: I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
: to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?
Verification: verifying that, for example, populations of
rats could ever produce, over generations, animals that are
clearly no longer rats at all. The fact is science can repeatedly
show observations, tests and verification that rats are all that
populations of rats will *ever* produce is proof that the fish to
man version of evolution is not true.
Until they show a single observation and/or
test/verification of their version of evolution, it remains a
belief.
Devils Advocaat
> When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
> similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
Human gnomes and other gnomes?
Next I suppose you will be calling an instrument designed to mark
exact time by a regularly repeated tick ...
... a metro-gnome.
Or perhaps you will be calling a person who wanders with no fixed
abode ...
... a gnome-ad.
Perhaps I should report you to ..
... the Department of Gnome-land Security.
Mark Isaak
> [...] In fact the fossil record more strongly supports creation
> by design than their version of evolution.
So you believe that there were hundreds of thousands (or more) of
different creation events, scattered somewhat irregularly over more than
a billion years, such that each new "kind" created was never very
different from a kind which already existed.
Out of curiosity, what religion are you? I have read hundreds of
creation myths, and never seen any religion with that one.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
chris thompson
Have you gnomercy?
Chris
Cory Albrecht
Yes, their headquarter sis in Gnome, AK. Betcha Sarah Palin doesn't know
that. :-)
John Wilkins
That's gnomic, that is.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:04 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 13 Nov, 01:07, "Uriel" <ur...@mails.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
> > > > similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
> > >
> > > Human gnomes and other gnomes?
> > >
> > > Next I suppose you will be calling an instrument designed to mark
> > > exact time by a regularly repeated tick ...
> > >
> > > ... a metro-gnome.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps you will be calling a person who wanders with no fixed
> > > abode ...
> > >
> > > ... a gnome-ad.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should report you to ..
> > >
> > > ... the Department of Gnome-land Security.
> >
> > Have you gnomercy?
> >
> That's gnomic, that is.
Roman through the gnoming?
John Wilkins
tension_on_the_wire
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 5:04 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On 13 Nov, 01:07, "Uriel" <ur...@mails.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > When I look at the human gnome and compare it to other gnomes that are
> > > > > > similar to man's gnome, I see a blueprint.
>
> > > > > Human gnomes and other gnomes?
>
> > > > > Next I suppose you will be calling an instrument designed to mark
> > > > > exact time by a regularly repeated tick ...
>
> > > > > ... a metro-gnome.
>
> > > > > Or perhaps you will be calling a person who wanders with no fixed
> > > > > abode ...
>
> > > > > ... a gnome-ad.
>
> > > > > Perhaps I should report you to ..
>
> > > > > ... the Department of Gnome-land Security.
>
> > > > Have you gnomercy?
>
> > > That's gnomic, that is.
>
> > Roman through the gnoming?
>
> Well, gnome-man is an ireland.
An interesting example of bi-gnomial gnomenclature.
--tension
Mark Isaak
It led to another name, too. When a sniper wanted a better angle,
someone created an entire branch of mathematics when he wanted to find
the trigger gnome a tree.
heekster
This thread is wandering all over the place.
One might describe it as gnomadic.
tension_on_the_wire
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well yes, but sometimes its nice to come back to gnome sweet gnome.
--tension
Susan S
Wandering? You'd think this was bloody Star Trek; I keep expecting to
hear, "Where Gno Man Has Gone Before."
Susan Silberstein
Walter Bushell
Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Gno gnus is good gnus?
Walter Bushell
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Even I wouldn't cosine a pun like that.
tension_on_the_wire
> In article <pan.2008.11.23.15.35.53.320...@earthlink.net>,
Oh, now you're going off on a tangent.
--tension
Mark Isaak
Yes, the last couple puns have been agnomelies.
heekster
wrote:
Oh, the shame. A thread which will live in ignominy.
Gabriel
<andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
: "Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qp6uu5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
: > John Harshman wrote, on 2008-11-12 18:52:
: >>
: >> I'm not sure what you would consider verification. Do you want someone
: >> to change a fish to a man in the lab, while you watch? Or what?
: >
: > He wants the fossils of every single one of your ancestors back to the
: > original sarcopterygian fish along with genetic assays of each individual.
:
: Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
: about this is that you actually believe it.
What's sadder is how they convince young people this lie
is true.
Gabriel
wrote:
:
: "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
: news:1KCdnWykN5TQ_YDU...@earthlink.com...
: > "AC" wrote in message news:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
: >> Gabriel wrote:
: >>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
: >>>: Gabriel wrote:
: >>>: > : Jack Dominey wrote:
: >>>: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones"
: >>>without
: >>>: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: >>>: >
: >>>: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: >>>: > believe what you believe.
: >>>:
: >>>:
: >>>: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: >>>: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: >>>: bad thing in your book.
: >>>
: >>> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
: >>> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
: >>
: >> Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how
: >> every branch of science does that.
: >
: > The problem is when speculative stories which are structured
: > according to the -biases- of the storyteller are built upon such
: > evidence. It is these stories which have brought deception on
: > those gullible enough to believe them.
:
: The problem comes when the person to whom the story is told is too stupid to
: understand it.
There's nothing hard to understand that you believe you
evolved from fish. Back this up with a single observation and/or
test/verification that populations of fish can produce, over
generations, an animal that is clearly no longer a fish at all.
Until anyone does, such a belief is not observable, and/or
testable/verifiable - ergo not science. Welcome to religion.
: When you learn what evolution is and how it works, come back
: to see us. Until then you have nothing of importance to say.
Gabriel
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
: Andrew wrote:
: > "Ralph" wrote in message news:iJjTk.65368$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
: >> "Andrew" wrote:
: >
: >>> Your ancestors are fish? The sad thing
: >>> about this is that you actually believe it.
: >> They go back much further than the fish,
: >> Andrew, get used to it!
: >
: > If that is true, then tell me where they go back to.
:
: Back to the beginning of life, of course. We know very little before the
: most recent common ancestor of all extant life, but that ancestor was
: something like a bacterium. Things get mistier the closer you get to
: that long-ago beginning. In contrast, the last 300 million years or so
: are pretty clear. Your ancestors were fish, and later tetrapods, and
: later amniotes, and later synapsids, and later therapsids, and later
: mammals, and later primates, and later monkeys, and later apes. The
: evidence for all this is overwhelming. I don't know why you think it's
: sad. You don't like fish?
Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
populations of fish producing animals that are clearly no longer
fish at all. Until anyone does, it remains clear that such a
fairy tale is a belief, and nothing more; and a downright lie
when they pass it off as scientific fact when it's not even
scientific.
Gabriel
<mouse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: On Nov 14, 4:26 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
: > "AC" wrote in messagenews:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
: > > Gabriel wrote:
: > >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
: > >>: Gabriel wrote:
: > >>: > : Jack Dominey wrote:
: > >>: > : >: Of course, you dismissed this as "look[ing] at dead bones" without
: > >>: > : >: saying why this is some kind of disqualification.
: > >>: >
: > >>: > I did say why. Because it's only a *reason* why you
: > >>: > believe what you believe.
: > >>:
: > >>:
: > >>: This isn't quite right. The evidence isn't ~a~ reason why we accept
: > >>: evolution. It's ~the~ reason. I have no idea why that would be a
: > >>: bad thing in your book.
: >
: > >> Because your reason is an imagined reason when looking at
: > >> dead bones - you have no way of proving your reasons are facts.
: >
: > > Yes, gathering physical evidence is very important. Odd how
: > > every branch of science does that.
: >
: > The problem is when speculative stories which are structured
: > according to the -biases- of the storyteller are built upon such
: > evidence. It is these stories which have brought deception on
: > those gullible enough to believe them.
:
: That's the usefullness of science. In science the "bias of the
: storyteller" doesn't matter, as any explanation has to supported by
: the evidence. If the story doesn't match reality, it's discarded.
This is what's supposed to happen. However, the fish to
man story of evolution keeps getting changed when evidence
continues to surface that contradicts itself. Even science
teaches by extensive experience that any theory that has to be
contorted that much always ends up being wrong.
In the meantime, please back up your story with a single
observation and/or test/verification that populations of fish can
produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
fish at all. Because right now, all they have are science fiction
stories that such things happen.
:
: The problem is ,that creationists tend to feel that there isn't any
: way to determine which story is correct,
Not true. It's beyond logical that there's an intelligent
designer. No one in their right mind would believe a building
would just "happen", no matter how many billions of years you
want to tack onto the feat. Why? Because it has complexity. Then
take a look at a single cell - it is more complex than the entire
universe. Then look at the trillions of cells in the human body.
It makes a billion buildings look like one spec of sand. And yet,
people will now defy their own God-given logic and act like they
believe something infinitely more complex than a building "just
happened". The fish to man version of evolution defies logic.
: so that one's personal bias
Yes, personal bias is what allows people to defy logic
and believe the complexity of life just "happened", not to
mention that human beings evolved from fish.
: should determine what story to accept. Science deals with this
: dilemma by using evidence as the means to determine which explanation
: is most likely correct.
:
: That's also why science has a much better track record of getting
: results.
Operational science, yes. The religion called "origin
science"? No results whatsoever.
:
: DJT
John Wilkins
Mark Isaak
> There's nothing hard to understand that you believe you
> evolved from fish. Back this up with a single observation and/or
> test/verification that populations of fish can produce, over
> generations, an animal that is clearly no longer a fish at all.
> Until anyone does, such a belief is not observable, and/or
> testable/verifiable - ergo not science. Welcome to religion.
The observations and tests you call for were described in 1859 and
repeated many times since then. If you really want to know what those
observations are (which I'm sure you don't), you can start with that
book, which is titled _On the Origin of Species_. Then, for some of the
more recent evidence, go to a newer book such as _Your Inner Fish_.
You might also want to learn something about religion while you are at
it. No, probably you don't want to, for the same reason you don't want
to learn about evolution.
AC
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> In the meantime, please back up your story with a single
> observation and/or test/verification that populations of fish can
> produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
> fish at all. Because right now, all they have are science fiction
> stories that such things happen.
You have been told where you can find those observations on your own.
Now you have three choices.
1) Go look;
2) Tell us where you live, and give us clear legal permission to bind you
to a chair, force open your eyelids, and force you to see the evidence;
3) Let it be known publically that you are a damned liar for implying
that you want to see the evidence.
Which option to you choose?
Ralph Page
If you have a genuine interest in this I suggest that you invest in
'Your Inner Fish', available in paperback in a month for about 10
bucks, and read the book. If you find specific claims made in the
book that you find to be non-science, point them out here and explain
your objections. I consistently read people asking for 'evidence' and
I seldom if ever see any specific references to any published works.
It might make exchanges here more fruitful if everyone here knew
specifically what you have found to be 'unscientific' or religious
about evolutionary biology. So far I've just heard you make a general
arm-waving claim that an entire branch if science is actually
religion. It would have a little more credence if you provided more
detail.
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email
Ye Old One
I think you will have a very hard job backing that up.
> Even science
>teaches by extensive experience that any theory that has to be
>contorted that much always ends up being wrong.
In what way has the ToE been contorted?
>
> In the meantime, please back up your story with a single
>observation and/or test/verification that populations of fish can
>produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
>fish at all. Because right now, all they have are science fiction
>stories that such things happen.
No, we have the fossil record.
>:
>: The problem is ,that creationists tend to feel that there isn't any
>: way to determine which story is correct,
>
> Not true. It's beyond logical that there's an intelligent
>designer.
Yes, it is illogical that there is an intelligent designer.
>No one in their right mind would believe a building
>would just "happen",
Buildings do not grow and evolve.
> no matter how many billions of years you
>want to tack onto the feat. Why? Because it has complexity. Then
>take a look at a single cell - it is more complex than the entire
>universe.
No it isn't.
> Then look at the trillions of cells in the human body.
There are a few different, but most are just copies.
>It makes a billion buildings look like one spec of sand. And yet,
>people will now defy their own God-given
Gods do not give anything, they are the invention of primitive man.
> logic and act like they
>believe something infinitely more complex than a building "just
>happened".
It didn't "just happen". It to many millions of years of evolution
even to get to the first cell and then 3 billion years to get to what
we have today.
> The fish to man version of evolution defies logic.
Only when you don't understand it.
>
>: so that one's personal bias
>
> Yes, personal bias is what allows people to defy logic
>and believe the complexity of life just "happened",
Nobody, except creationists, believe that.
>not to
>mention that human beings evolved from fish.
Over many, MANY, steps.
>
>: should determine what story to accept. Science deals with this
>: dilemma by using evidence as the means to determine which explanation
>: is most likely correct.
>:
>: That's also why science has a much better track record of getting
>: results.
>
> Operational science, yes. The religion called "origin
>science"? No results whatsoever.
I think you need to get yourself an education.
--
Bob.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:04:40 -0500, Gabriel wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > In the meantime, please back up your story with a single
> > observation and/or test/verification that populations of fish can
> > produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
> > fish at all. Because right now, all they have are science fiction
> > stories that such things happen.
>
> Now you have three choices.
>
> 1) Go look;
>
> 2) Tell us where you live, and give us clear legal permission to bind you
> to a chair, force open your eyelids, and force you to see the evidence;
>
> 3) Let it be known publically that you are a damned liar for implying
> that you want to see the evidence.
>
> Which option to you choose?
I'm thinking he'll go with #3, but he won't phrase it that way.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Lee Jay
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:55:16 -0800, John Harshman
> : most recent common ancestor of all extant life, but that ancestor was
> : something like a bacterium. Things get mistier the closer you get to
> : that long-ago beginning. In contrast, the last 300 million years or so
> : are pretty clear. Your ancestors were fish, and later tetrapods, and
> : later amniotes, and later synapsids, and later therapsids, and later
> : mammals, and later primates, and later monkeys, and later apes. The
> : evidence for all this is overwhelming. I don't know why you think it's
> : sad. You don't like fish?
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
> populations of fish producing animals that are clearly no longer
> fish at all. Until anyone does, it remains clear that such a
> fairy tale is a belief, and nothing more; and a downright lie
> when they pass it off as scientific fact when it's not even
> scientific.
No, what is clear is that your little tiny creationist mind can't
handle more than one single data point at a time. For those with
larger mind capacity, such claims as John made above are deduced from
a great many observations from many branches of science from many
researchers.
Your repeated statements similar to those above are akin to saying
something like: "Show me one single molecule of paint that even
remotely looks like a person. Until then your claim that there is a
Mona Lisa painting of a person is nothing but but a fairy tale
belief." You'll never see the person in the painting (evolution in
the data) unless you stand back and look at more than one molecule
(observation) at a time. But we all know you aren't interested in
actual learning because you are too afraid your weak beliefs will
crumble if you discover some actual reality, so you'll stick to your
one-molecule-at-a-time examination of the Mona Lisa.
Lee Jay
Walter Bushell
heekster <heek...@iwxt.net> wrote:
Just in time for Pearl Harbour Day.
heekster
wrote:
No, that would be "infamy", which is extraneous.
What's the matter with you, are you gnome-less?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
Thanks for running away again. I love to see you lose.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
John Baker
wrote:
Problem is, Gabe thinks non-science *is* science. He wouldn't know the
real thing if it jumped up and bit him.
wf3h
>
> Show a single observation and/or test/verification of
> populations of fish producing animals that are clearly no longer
> fish at all. Until anyone does, it remains clear that such a
> fairy tale is a belief, and nothing more; and a downright lie
> when they pass it off as scientific fact when it's not even
> scientific.
science does not need this to prove evolution is true. we see
evolution happening. we no more need to 'prove it' as the creationist
says than we need to build a star in a lab to understand starlight.
of course, creationism has failed for thousands of years to explain
ANYTHING about nature at all...
tension_on_the_wire
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:55:16 -0800, John Harshman
>
> : Andrew wrote:
> : > "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:iJjTk.65368$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Are you suggesting that until the lifetime of a man is long enough to
watch a population of fish eventually spawn something looking like a
frog, it can logically be denied that it ever happened when man was
not here to witness? I'm sorry, but you cannot ban extrapolation from
suggestive circumstantial evidence to an infinite level like that.
There comes a point when denial of very reasonable speculation, while
holding out for a highly unreasonable set of conditions to occur
constitutes nothing more than obstruction of truth, or at least likely
truth.
I must say, it sounds a lot like you are waiting for the human race to
evolve into an immortal species, or at least one whose members survive
for several million years, each, before you will accept the reality of
something which takes that span of time to occur. Even if we could
create lab conditions to replicate it. If not, then what, explicitly,
would qualify as a "single observation" of the phenomenon, in your
opinion?
On the other hand, if that is what you are suggesting, that the idea
of speciation by evolution is not proven and won't be till we live
long enough to watch it happen, what difference does that make if the
processes and mechanics of natural selection CAN be proven in non-
speciating examples? You cannot claim that evolution of species very
far from their original appearance and function is impossible, because
that much HAS been proven. It is not only proven, but easy to harness
in the breeding industry. And it is a mistake to assume that there is
some grand step in the genetic mechanics of species change. It is
only a question of whether or not there is enough homology in the
chromosomes to reproduce together which roughly defines when two
animals have come to reside in different species categories. And
there are some excellent living examples of closeness and surprising
miscibility of animals that are ordinarily defined as separate
species, in wild feline and equine categories just to start.
I think God might take exception to the idea that you think He isn't
capable of designing such an elegant system, myself.
--tension
tension_on_the_wire
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:40:38 -0800 (PST), DJT
>
What exact logic is it which is being defied? You seem to be arguing
that complexity demands a designer. I can go along with that. In
fact, I heartily believe it. What, in the fish-to-man "version" of
evolution, defies that concept? Is it not the supreme example of
complexity, the system itself? Where is it stated that evolution of
mankind from other species, by definition, demands NO designer? Or is
that an example of YOUR logic? Quite the opposite, I would suggest, if
you truly believe that complexity demands intelligence. Or are you
fooled into fighting the general consensus of evolutionists (who
happen to accept atheism) that the one implies the other? Why is it
not possible, as I have asked before, for God to have designed this
system? And if He did not, then, who DID design the stunningly
brilliant means by which all species adapt in order to survive their
local environments, even without speciation being necessary? And
also, if He did not, then what OTHER exact wonderful, miraculous
mechanism did God design for the creation of species, and why is this
one not good enough for you? Please don't tell me you are one of
those mortally offended at the idea of less than stellar ancestors.
That's just like the nouveau-riche embarrassment at their working-
class origins, How passe. It's not about who you came from, it's
about who you are NOW that counts.
--tension
tension_on_the_wire
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:04:40 -0500, Gabriel
> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >: so that one's personal bias
>
> > Yes, personal bias is what allows people to defy logic
> >and believe the complexity of life just "happened",
>
> Nobody, except creationists, believe that.
The fact that I am here is evidence that you are obviously incorrect
about that.
--tension
Wombat
wrote:
I hope you are not expecting an answer. For months people have been
trying him to explain his definitions without success. Since he is
getting his "information" from AIG/ICR I would suggest he cannot.
Wombat
Ye Old One
The complexity of life did not "just happen". Only creationists
believe that.
Scientists, on the other hand, believe that life started very simple.
So simple that we would be hard pressed to say were is ceased to be
simple chemical reactions and started to be what we consider life.
To arrive at the complexity of the first cell, even though that was
certainly far simples then the simplest modern cell we have, took
millions of years of evolution.
--
Bob.
tension_on_the_wire
Well, Bob, first of all, it seems plainly obvious that you are
pretending to mistake Gabriel's words "just happened" to mean instant
creationistic genesis of complex life, when you seem to be intelligent
enough to know that what was meant in that statement is that it is the
atheists who think that the complexity of life "just happened" (read:
without God). It does absolutely no good to any conversation for you
to force an unintended meaning on someone else's words. That's just
sophistry and semantics; post-toasting, in other words. Gabriel makes
a valid point which actually applies to both sides of the argument
which is that personal bias allows people to defy logic. And it is
obvious that Gabriel feels that believing that the complexity of life
"just happened" without any external intelligent assistance is a
defiance of logic.
As for your explanation of how the complexity of life did not "just
happen", (whatever that means in your terminology, obviously not
referring to external interference but some whimsical, passionate,
pissing-in-the-wind, emotional, gut response to the perceived
pejorative flavour of the words "just happened"), I'm afraid
suggesting millions of years of evolution happening all by itself with
no outside interference does actually translate to "just happened",
without external interference. "Just happened" does not mean "just
happened in one instantaneous moment". "Just happened" means "just
seemed to happen"-all by itself, with no assistance or interference,
as in "Hey Junior, how did you get to be Class President?" "I don't
know, Dad, it just happened". It still took some significant time (at
least the length of an election campaign) to happen, but it seemed to
happen against the odds, without any external assistance as far as
Junior could detect.
As for the explanation itself, I wonder how much you have actually
read about it. "Scientists" do not all believe that life started in a
way that we would be hard-pressed to distinguish between chemical
reactions and life. What a grand, sweeping generalization about
scientists (not to mention life)!! We are not a voting block. We all
have individual ideas about this subject, and many of them are aware
that we don't actually have the first clue about how life started.
All we have is a motley collection of data demonstrating the
properties of various organic molecules under certain conditions, but
none have been able to generate anything remotely close to what we
would call life, so there is nothing yet that we are hard-pressed to
distinguish from plain chemical reactions. Your information is
inaccurate. Although actually, I note that you didn't actually give
any information, just your opinion, or at best, mistaken
interpretation.
And also, for the record, the first cell was not created by
evolution. This is one of the biggest myths about evolution heartily
espoused and advocated by atheists. Whatever chemical processes may
have taken place in order to produce the first cell, DNA was not part
of the process, it was part of what was being made. And there is no
evolution without DNA, and not just any DNA, but DNA in the form of
chromosomes which undergo meiosis, gene-mixing, variability and random
mutation. The process of evolution is dependent, not just upon
natural selection, but genetic mutation which is essential to the
process. What "genetic mutation" in what DNA of what type of non-cell
container did you have in mind that might evolve into a cell, I
wonder? The fact is that the first cell would have been the first
object capable of contained-DNA replication, genetic mixing, cell
division and transmitted inheritability and therefore the first object
upon which evolution could, for the very first time, begin to
operate. We have yet to discover any self-sustaining and self-
initiating mechanism which could theoretically create even the organic
elements of a cell and as for the assembly of them into a cell? We
are a long way from that one.
So I am afraid your statement in the above post actually reads more
like creed than fact, and goes very well to demonstrate the truth of
Gabriel's post about how personal bias can allow people to defy logic
and believe that the complexity of life "just happened", even if you
do try to qualify it with millions of years in which to "just happen".
--tension
Gabriel
<tension...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That fish can "learn", over generations, to breath air,
walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write every language
known to man. This defies logic. And even science can repeatedly
show, test and verify that fish only ever produce, over
generations, more fish.
: You seem to be arguing
: that complexity demands a designer. I can go along with that. In
: fact, I heartily believe it.
Great - then you believe in a common designer. The common
designer we believe in is God.
: What, in the fish-to-man "version" of
: evolution, defies that concept?
That what they believe has never been observed, is not
testable and is not verifiable. No one has ever been able to show
a test or observation of, for example, populations of rats
producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
rats at all. Until they show such an observation and/or test case
happening, what they claim remains unobservable, untestable and
unverifiable - ergo a belief, not science.
The fish to man version of evolution was created as an
attempt to deny there is a God, or that God was needed for
anything. It's precluded with various imagined stories on how
life was created from lifelessness. Ask anyone who doesn't
believe in God *why* they don't, and you almost always get the
answer "well because we know about evolution".
: Is it not the supreme example of
: complexity, the system itself? Where is it stated that evolution of
: mankind from other species, by definition, demands NO designer? Or is
: that an example of YOUR logic? Quite the opposite, I would suggest, if
: you truly believe that complexity demands intelligence. Or are you
: fooled into fighting the general consensus of evolutionists (who
: happen to accept atheism) that the one implies the other? Why is it
: not possible, as I have asked before, for God to have designed this
: system?
All the evidence points much more logically to God doing
exactly what He says He did.
Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
Fossils
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
Age/Dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
www.icr.org
www.creationontheweb.com
: And if He did not, then, who DID design the stunningly
: brilliant means by which all species adapt in order to survive their
: local environments, even without speciation being necessary?
First of all Speciation is not the fish to man version of
evolution: it's dogs producing more dogs that adapt if need be to
their environment, but **remain dogs**. God designed that
adaptability. However, when they take the leap of "faith" to
claim that there's no limits to these changes, and that
populations fish can eventually produce, over generations, human
beings, it becomes a dishonest attempt to obfuscate the truth,
let alone the truth of God.
Romans 1:18-23 KJVR
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress]
the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from [since] the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even [including] his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
: And
: also, if He did not, then what OTHER exact wonderful, miraculous
: mechanism did God design for the creation of species, and why is this
: one not good enough for you? Please don't tell me you are one of
: those mortally offended at the idea of less than stellar ancestors.
Not at all. If God designed us that way, then so be it.
But as it turns out, God indicates He created man after His
image, and He created all creatures after their kind in their
mature form, and the evidence points more logically to that fact
- homology, DNA similarity, the fossil record and nary an
intermediate form to debate about. However, evolutionists refuse
to consider that theory because they refuse to consider the
possibility of God. Don't believe me? Ask their biggest
supporter, Dawkins, and read the posts by dozens of other "fish
to man" evolutionists, and their reaction to the possibility of
God.
: That's just like the nouveau-riche embarrassment at their working-
: class origins, How passe. It's not about who you came from, it's
: about who you are NOW that counts.
Actually, it's about not ignoring the evidence that more
logically points to God doing exactly what He says He did, not to
mention about not ignoring God's Word, acting like it cannot be
trusted, when evidence continues to show us it can.
Genesis 1:25-27 KJVR
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
:
: --tension
James Beck
gabriel...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Genesis 1:25-27 KJVR
>
>
Get that published in a science journal and get back with us.
You never ending circular rants are so tiring that I can not believe
that these people even try anymore.
I have come to the conclusion that your place on this planet is to
provide an example of how fucked up a religious upbringing can make a
person.
Now get your "God Hates Fags" sign and go hang out at some soldier's
funeral.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> : What exact logic is it which is being defied?
>
> That fish can "learn", over generations, to breath air,
> walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write every language
> known to man. This defies logic.
Just as well nobody ever suggested that this has anything to do with
learning then, isn't it?
We know of a phenomenon of nature called "evolution". We can observe
it in action in nature and replicate it in the lab. We have a very
robust, extraordinarily well-supported and exhaustively tested theory
to explain *how* evolution happens, and there is no other testable
theory which explains most of what we observe and measure in biology
and in the fossil record.
> And even science can repeatedly
> show, test and verify that fish only ever produce, over.
> generations, more fish.
Quite so. That's why humans are highly derived fish. We share many
characters, both morphological and genetic, with fish. Many aspects of
our anatomy are difficult to explain *unless* we are evolved from
fish. Why, for example, should the same genes which determine where
the pectoral fins in fish are located in the vertebral column
determine where the forelimbs of humans are located?
You have refused offers of recommendations of sources from which you
can educate yourself in evolutionary science. What do you think it
tells us about the validity of your position if it can be maintained
only by ignorance?
>
> : You seem to be arguing
> : that complexity demands a designer. I can go along with that. In
> : fact, I heartily believe it.
>
> Great - then you believe in a common designer. The common
> designer we believe in is God.
Unless you can propose something which can *not* be "explained" by
divine intervention, such a belief has no place in science. That does
not mean that scientists are all atheists, but it means that they
understand that belief in God is a matter of faith, and that science
can only work under the assumption of naturalism.
>
> : What, in the fish-to-man "version" of
> : evolution, defies that concept?
>
> That what they believe has never been observed, is not
> testable and is not verifiable.
This is flatly untrue. Evolution has been observed, evolutionary
theory can and has been tested - in fact, it has probably been tested
more exhaustively than any other theory in science - and is verified
by much of what we observe in biology and the fossil record.
> No one has ever been able to show
> a test or observation of, for example, populations of rats
> producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
> rats at all.
Quite so. Evolutionary theory *predicts* that if we observe
populations of rats over many generations they will still retain many
characters of rats, and will be classified as rats. If they were
clearly no longer rats *at all* it would *falsify* evolutionary
theory.
> Until they show such an observation and/or test case
> happening, what they claim remains unobservable, untestable and
> unverifiable - ergo a belief, not science.
Your ignorance of the subject has led you to propose a condition which
would actually *falsify* evolutionary theory rather than verify it.
>
> The fish to man version of evolution was created as an
> attempt to deny there is a God, or that God was needed for
> anything.
This is another outright falsehood. Evolutionary theory was developed
to explain the evidence. *No* theory in *any* branch of *any* science
invokes God.
> It's precluded with various imagined stories on how
> life was created from lifelessness.
Evolutionary theory does not address the question of abiogenesis.
That's a different, though related field of research.
You may chose to believe that God pouffed life into existence. That's
your preroigative. However, such a belief has no value as a scientific
proposition, and if we are using the tools of science to investigate
abiogenesis we can *only* do so under the assumption of naturalism.
This is not a matter of religious belief, or lack of it. It's the
nature of science.
> Ask anyone who doesn't
> believe in God *why* they don't, and you almost always get the
> answer "well because we know about evolution".
Then they'd be wrong. Evolutionary theory does not seek to explain how
life originated. It explains the phenomenon of evolution we observe in
nature and replicate in the lab.
>
> : Is it not the supreme example of
> : complexity, the system itself? Where is it stated that evolution of
> : mankind from other species, by definition, demands NO designer? Or is
> : that an example of YOUR logic? Quite the opposite, I would suggest, if
> : you truly believe that complexity demands intelligence. Or are you
> : fooled into fighting the general consensus of evolutionists (who
> : happen to accept atheism) that the one implies the other? Why is it
> : not possible, as I have asked before, for God to have designed this
> : system?
>
> All the evidence points much more logically to God doing
> exactly what He says He did.
Fine. That's your religious conviction. However, it is not a
scientific proposition.
You can post all the links you want to creationist source, but such
sources are not reliable. They are riddled with distortion,
misrepresentation and outright falsehoods.
>
> Creationhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
>
> Fossilshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
>
> Age/Dating methodshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
>
> www.icr.orgwww.creationontheweb.com
>
> : And if He did not, then, who DID design the stunningly
> : brilliant means by which all species adapt in order to survive their
> : local environments, even without speciation being necessary?
>
> First of all Speciation is not the fish to man version of
> evolution:
There is only one "version" of evolution.
> it's dogs producing more dogs that adapt if need be to
> their environment, but **remain dogs**.
...just as they remain carnivora, mammals, placentals, synapsids,
tetrapods and so on. It's called the nested hierarchy. It's one of the
most striking evidences for the shared evolutionary ancestry of all
living organisms.
> God designed that
> adaptability.
Fine.
Either you present that assertion in such a way that it can be tested
using the tools of science, or you need to accept that it is not a
scientific proposition.
> However, when they take the leap of "faith" to
> claim that there's no limits to these changes,
Nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that these changes are
limited.
> and that
> populations fish can eventually produce, over generations, human
> beings,
We have excellent evidence from both genetics and comparitive anatomy
that this is the case. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
> it becomes a dishonest attempt to obfuscate the truth,
> let alone the truth of God.
It is not dishonest to follow the evidence where it leads. What *is*
dishonest is to claim that your religious convictions are supported by
science when it is clear that you refuse point-blank to learn anything
about the nature of science.
It is also dishonest to make claims about evolutionary theory when you
have refused point-blank to learn anything about it, and demonstrate
that you don't have a clue about the evidence on which it is built,
the motivations of the scientists who developed it, and the beliefs of
the scientists for whom it is the central unifying theory of their
discipline.
RF
TomS
<49kaj45h2sncd8n5c...@4ax.com>, Gabriel stated..."[...snip...]
>: You seem to be arguing
>: that complexity demands a designer. I can go along with that. In
>
> Great - then you believe in a common designer. The common
>designer we believe in is God.
Could you explain how you got to "a common" designer?
After all, many of the standard examples given for "intelligent
design" seem to point to *conflicts* in design. Such as:
* Bacterial flagella which enhance the virulence of bacteria in
their hosts - as opposed to - The adaptive immune system in jawed
vertebrates which enables them to destroy bacteria
* The eyes of predator species which enables them to find prey -
as opposed to - The eyes of prey species which enables them to
detect potential predators
* Likewise the wings of flying predators/prey
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ye Old One
And I said that the only people who think life "just happened" are
creationists.
> It does absolutely no good to any conversation for you
>to force an unintended meaning on someone else's words. That's just
>sophistry and semantics; post-toasting, in other words.
All I said was that the only people who think life "just happened" are
creationists. Science certainly doesn't think so.
> Gabriel makes
>a valid point
There has to be a first time, but I haven't seen it yet.
> which actually applies to both sides of the argument
>which is that personal bias allows people to defy logic. And it is
>obvious that Gabriel feels that believing that the complexity of life
>"just happened" without any external intelligent assistance is a
>defiance of logic.
But nobody does believe that.
>
>As for your explanation of how the complexity of life did not "just
>happen", (whatever that means in your terminology, obviously not
>referring to external interference but some whimsical, passionate,
>pissing-in-the-wind, emotional, gut response to the perceived
>pejorative flavour of the words "just happened"), I'm afraid
>suggesting millions of years of evolution happening all by itself with
>no outside interference does actually translate to "just happened",
Bloody rubbish!
>without external interference. "Just happened" does not mean "just
>happened in one instantaneous moment". "Just happened" means "just
>seemed to happen"-all by itself, with no assistance or interference,
>as in "Hey Junior, how did you get to be Class President?" "I don't
>know, Dad, it just happened". It still took some significant time (at
>least the length of an election campaign) to happen, but it seemed to
>happen against the odds, without any external assistance as far as
>Junior could detect.
>
>As for the explanation itself, I wonder how much you have actually
>read about it. "Scientists" do not all believe that life started in a
>way that we would be hard-pressed to distinguish between chemical
>reactions and life.
Is that so? Care to provide a cite?
> What a grand, sweeping generalization about
>scientists (not to mention life)!! We are not a voting block. We all
>have individual ideas about this subject, and many of them are aware
>that we don't actually have the first clue about how life started.
What absolute bloody rubbish! Of course we have clues as to how life
may have first started - in fact science has already come up with many
plausible ideas, several of which probably did happen.
>All we have is a motley collection of data demonstrating the
>properties of various organic molecules under certain conditions, but
>none have been able to generate anything remotely close to what we
>would call life, so there is nothing yet that we are hard-pressed to
>distinguish from plain chemical reactions.
We have only had a few decades. It may have taken the Earth half a
billion years to do it.
>Your information is
>inaccurate. Although actually, I note that you didn't actually give
>any information, just your opinion, or at best, mistaken
>interpretation.
In most cases I charge for opinions.
>
>And also, for the record, the first cell was not created by
>evolution. This is one of the biggest myths about evolution heartily
>espoused and advocated by atheists. Whatever chemical processes may
>have taken place in order to produce the first cell, DNA was not part
>of the process,
Did I say it was?
>it was part of what was being made. And there is no
>evolution without DNA,
Again, rubbish. You do seem to have some very strange ideas.
For a start, what about RNA?
>and not just any DNA, but DNA in the form of
>chromosomes which undergo meiosis, gene-mixing, variability and random
>mutation. The process of evolution is dependent, not just upon
>natural selection, but genetic mutation which is essential to the
>process. What "genetic mutation" in what DNA of what type of non-cell
>container did you have in mind that might evolve into a cell, I
>wonder?
So there was no evolution before the first cell? What crap!
>The fact is that the first cell would have been the first
>object capable of contained-DNA replication, genetic mixing, cell
>division and transmitted inheritability and therefore the first object
>upon which evolution could, for the very first time, begin to
>operate. We have yet to discover any self-sustaining and self-
>initiating mechanism which could theoretically create even the organic
>elements of a cell and as for the assembly of them into a cell? We
>are a long way from that one.
Or maybe we will do it next week.
>
>So I am afraid your statement in the above post actually reads more
>like creed than fact, and goes very well to demonstrate the truth of
>Gabriel's post
Gabriel and truth do not go together.
> about how personal bias can allow people to defy logic
>and believe that the complexity of life "just happened", even if you
>do try to qualify it with millions of years in which to "just happen".
>
>--tension
As I've said, no scientist would claim life "just happened", only a
creationist is that stupid.
--
Bob.
tension_on_the_wire
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 03:15:22 -0800 (PST), tension_on_the_wire
"Science", whatever you mean by that word, does not think. Scientists
think. And you are speaking to one. And it is quite clear to me, and
most of the colleagues I know, that creationists do not think that
life "just happened". They have a very clear idea that life was
created, and did not "just happen" by itself. They think that it was
put there by God. It is atheists who think that life "just happened"
without God or any external interference, as I mentioned in my
previous post and which you chose to rebutt with your brilliant
response, completely ignoring the concept I am trying to communicate
to you about the meaning of the words "just happened".
>
> > Gabriel makes
> >a valid point
>
> There has to be a first time, but I haven't seen it yet.
What a helpful interjection.
>
> > which actually applies to both sides of the argument
> >which is that personal bias allows people to defy logic. And it is
> >obvious that Gabriel feels that believing that the complexity of life
> >"just happened" without any external intelligent assistance is a
> >defiance of logic.
>
> But nobody does believe that.
Oh, really? So the entire movement of intelligent design is not based
on people trying to prove that there is a logical reason for believing
in a Creator? Or do you really think that all theists think like
Gabriel, the arch-creationist? There is, unfortunately for you, a
very large number of people who believe in God, and who think that it
is inherently logical to believe in a Creator and equally illogical to
believe that life "just happened" by itself, over millions of years,
without a Creator behind it. Many of them are even Christian, and not
literal creationists. Sorry to burst your bubble. You may not agree
with them, but you certainly cannot deny their existence, or the fact
that this is what they believe.
Do you really think that all people who believe in God agree with
creationists that it is all a matter of faith, and that logic and
science has no place in considering this subject matter? You are
grossly misinformed if that is what you believe. Do you not
understand what a tiny minority of theists the creationist group is?
I guess it makes your position much more comfortable to think that all
theists eschew logic willingly and forcibly in their obdurateness
regarding their faith. Makes it very easy for you to come here and
delude yourself that they are all ostriches with their heads stuck in
the sand.
>
>
>
> >As for your explanation of how the complexity of life did not "just
> >happen", (whatever that means in your terminology, obviously not
> >referring to external interference but some whimsical, passionate,
> >pissing-in-the-wind, emotional, gut response to the perceived
> >pejorative flavour of the words "just happened"), I'm afraid
> >suggesting millions of years of evolution happening all by itself with
> >no outside interference does actually translate to "just happened",
>
> Bloody rubbish!
What a brilliant retort. I blush with shame at how you have so
thoroughly trounced my totally mundane explanation of what "just
happened" means and does not mean. I note, however, in passing, that
you continue to use a passionate pissing-in-the-wind emotional and
content-free response, reinforcing my idea that you are no more
logical than Gabriel in this matter.
>
> >without external interference. "Just happened" does not mean "just
> >happened in one instantaneous moment". "Just happened" means "just
> >seemed to happen"-all by itself, with no assistance or interference,
> >as in "Hey Junior, how did you get to be Class President?" "I don't
> >know, Dad, it just happened". It still took some significant time (at
> >least the length of an election campaign) to happen, but it seemed to
> >happen against the odds, without any external assistance as far as
> >Junior could detect.
>
> >As for the explanation itself, I wonder how much you have actually
> >read about it. "Scientists" do not all believe that life started in a
> >way that we would be hard-pressed to distinguish between chemical
> >reactions and life.
>
> Is that so? Care to provide a cite?
Sorry, could you repeat that? Are you suggesting that I need to
provide a cite in order to justify my skepticism about your sweeping
and totally unsubstantiated remark that "scientists" have such a
profound understanding about how life started that they are having
difficulty distinguishing between life and non-viable chemical
reactions? I would suggest to you that you come up with a reference
which clearly states the profound understanding that all scientists
have about this subject, and how it makes that distinction difficult
between viable and non-viable chemical reactions, and then we'll take
it from there. I'll be most interested since, to my knowledge, we
have not yet come up with even one single chemical reaction which is
proven or even suspected to be life-generating, or even close to it.
Life-sustaining chemical reactions are myriad in number, but life-
generating, not a single one.
Second of all, I don't need a cite to prove my point, since I AM a
case in point, and I, myself, as a scientist with two degrees, one in
biochemistry and one in medicine, do not believe that life started in
the simple, facile way that you suggest (without any detailed or
scientific elaboration, I might add). The fact of the matter is the
"scientists" do not have a consensus opinion on the way life started
at all, and if you think we do, it is definitely your job to
demonstrate that we do, not my job to demonstrate that you are wrong.
Just as atheists insist that the onus is upon theists to demonstrate
that God exists, and not upon atheists to prove that He doesn't. The
ball is in your court.
> > What a grand, sweeping generalization about
> >scientists (not to mention life)!! We are not a voting block. We all
> >have individual ideas about this subject, and many of them are aware
> >that we don't actually have the first clue about how life started.
>
> What absolute bloody rubbish! Of course we have clues as to how life
> may have first started - in fact science has already come up with many
> plausible ideas, several of which probably did happen.
Ah, the reliable emotional rebuttal again. It is a convenient standby
when you have nothing logical to say.
"Several of which probably did happen." How incredibly scientific. I
will definitely be interested in reading the cites you have to support
this idea that life probably started several times, and each in a
different way, on Earth. This is an even newer idea than the standard
comprehension that it (life) likely happened or started only once,
being as the odds against it are so astronomical, and that it spread
throughout the planet, explaining why every single species in every
geographic location on the planet carry the same life-sustaining
biochemistries and same DNA building blocks. Of course, for someone
who believes that life "just happened" all by itself with no input
from an intelligent creator, against the most unbelievable odds, it
must be quite easy to blithely ignore probability statistics and
smugly state that "several" of those "plausible" ideas "probably did
happen".
Saying "of course we have clues..." does not make it true. Let me
tell you what we do have. We have, as I mentioned, a great deal of
information on many organic chemical reactions which, because they are
organic, are pertinent to life, and the existence and maintenance of
life. None of them, including the ones that attempt to inject large
amounts of external energy or radiation into the process, are able to
do more than generate more amounts of the same or slightly more
complex non-living chemicals. There is no, I repeat, no chemical
reactions identified which produce anything more complex than a few
amino-acid chains and so far, no one is in any danger of confusing
chains of amino acids with life. No one is close to explaining the
self-assembly of the first DNA chain. No one is close to explaining
how DNA, once it existed, became a self-replicating phenomenon, or how
it got into a cell, or how the cell first got created.
So would you mind elaborating on just what, in my post, is rubbish,
and exactly why that is so? With, if possible, a post that actually
contains some facts, and not these grand sweeping unsubstantiated
claims of yours pertaining to vague plausible ideas? Pony up if
you've got some science, my friend, I'd like to read it.
>
> >All we have is a motley collection of data demonstrating the
> >properties of various organic molecules under certain conditions, but
> >none have been able to generate anything remotely close to what we
> >would call life, so there is nothing yet that we are hard-pressed to
> >distinguish from plain chemical reactions.
>
> We have only had a few decades. It may have taken the Earth half a
> billion years to do it.
Oh, so what you are saying is that we do NOT have the answer, and we
need some time. Well, that is not what you claimed up there in the
above. It is, however, what I've been telling you all along....that
we have not got the answer to how life started, and we are not racing
down the homestretch to the finish line, either. We are barely out
the gate, and have no idea where the finish line is, or in what
direction we should be running. We are whistling in the dark when it
comes to trying to reproduce or reverse-engineer life, and the current
efforts in science to this end are being done in a somewhat gunshot
approach of trying to fool around with or manipulate every pertinent
organic molecule known to mankind in the hopes of coming up with the
solution. So far, no cigar.
>
> >Your information is
> >inaccurate. Although actually, I note that you didn't actually give
> >any information, just your opinion, or at best, mistaken
> >interpretation.
>
> In most cases I charge for opinions.
It's probably a good thing that you didn't try to charge me for this
one.
>
>
>
> >And also, for the record, the first cell was not created by
> >evolution. This is one of the biggest myths about evolution heartily
> >espoused and advocated by atheists. Whatever chemical processes may
> >have taken place in order to produce the first cell, DNA was not part
> >of the process,
>
> Did I say it was?
You imply it the minute you use the word evolution. Unless, of
course, you are one of those sneaky people who changes the meaning of
evolution for convenience. If you mean the generic evolution of
something developing in time, it is dishonest of you to use it in the
context which implies natural selection operating upon inheritable
characteristics.
>
> >it was part of what was being made. And there is no
> >evolution without DNA,
>
> Again, rubbish. You do seem to have some very strange ideas.
Again what an astoundingly logical response. I'm very sorry for you
that the most basic definition of evolution by natural selection
demands genetic material to work upon. But without DNA, there is no
random mutation. RNA is the same damn stuff, made out of pretty much
the same damn chemicals, and working within the same damn system. It
is trivial to bring it up as if it were significantly different stuff
from a different mechanism of life. It is part and parcel of
genetically transmissible material. The point is there is no
evolution without it. DNA, RNA and messenger RNA. All of it. And
with no cell within which to contain it, and divide into two cells
using it, there is not even a basic concept of "transmissibility" or
"inheritance". There are no generations of anything upon which
natural selection can operate. This is the most basic element of the
mechanism of evolution, and if you do not know this, you shouldn't
even be having this conversation. The first cell had to come into
existence without the benefit of any of these mechanisms. It had to
assemble itself using totally different chemical processes that have
nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with natural selection, random
mutation, or genetic variability.
If these ideas are strange to you, may I suggest you go back and read
some basic texts in genetics and cell biology. High school level
books should do the trick.
>
> For a start, what about RNA?
See above.
>
> >and not just any DNA, but DNA in the form of
> >chromosomes which undergo meiosis, gene-mixing, variability and random
> >mutation. The process of evolution is dependent, not just upon
> >natural selection, but genetic mutation which is essential to the
> >process. What "genetic mutation" in what DNA of what type of non-cell
> >container did you have in mind that might evolve into a cell, I
> >wonder?
>
> So there was no evolution before the first cell? What crap!
This entire post seems full of your blustering emotional responses to
every valid point I make. But no tangible rebuttal at all.
There was no genetic evolution before the first cell. Yes, that is
right, despite your openly rampant jaw-dropping disbelief. Evolution
did not, I repeat, NOT create life on this planet. It may be the
formative influence on adaptation of life, and speciation, but it had
nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution requires life to
work upon. Whatever mechanism was used, it was not that one. The
assembly of the cell is much more dependent, in fact, upon lipid
chemistry, and the possible conditions that might have been optimal
for the creation of the first phospho-lipid bilayer and micelle
formation, none of which has anything to do with DNA or its role in
protein formation. The first object that would have been in a
position to take advantage of natural selection and environmental
niche formation could not have been anything smaller than a cell with
transmissible inheritable characteristics derived from its genetic
code, regardless of whether it was DNA or RNA initially.
>
> >The fact is that the first cell would have been the first
> >object capable of contained-DNA replication, genetic mixing, cell
> >division and transmitted inheritability and therefore the first object
> >upon which evolution could, for the very first time, begin to
> >operate. We have yet to discover any self-sustaining and self-
> >initiating mechanism which could theoretically create even the organic
> >elements of a cell and as for the assembly of them into a cell? We
> >are a long way from that one.
>
> Or maybe we will do it next week.
Care to make a wager on that?
>
> >So I am afraid your statement in the above post actually reads more
> >like creed than fact, and goes very well to demonstrate the truth of
> >Gabriel's post
>
> Gabriel and truth do not go together.
More creed.
Gabriel may be logic-defying in his/her own right when it comes to
defending the faith. This does not logically translate into a
statement that Gabriel is incapable of telling the truth about
anything, and it is becoming clear that, despite the fact the he/she
was wrong about creation, he/she was certainly not wrong about you
when it came to assessing your ability to defy logic directly as a
result of your own personal bias.
> > about how personal bias can allow people to defy logic
> >and believe that the complexity of life "just happened", even if you
> >do try to qualify it with millions of years in which to "just happen".
>
> >--tension
>
> As I've said, no scientist would claim life "just happened", only a
> creationist is that stupid.
And as I've said, no creationist believes that life "just happened".
Creationists believe that God put it there. Only atheists think that
it is possible for life to "just happen" all by itself without God. I
won't be as rude and offensive as you are by elaborating how stupid I
think that opinion is, or how deeply dishonest it is for you to insist
yet again that this is a debate between scientists and creationists,
when, in truth, it is a debate between atheists (of doubtful
scientific understanding, if you are any example) and a very limited
selection of literal "Let There Be Light" creationistic Christians.
--tension
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Actually, no. It's based on an utterly and transparently dishonest
attempt to circumvent US laws against teaching "scientific"
creationism in schools by pretending that their religious convictions
are supported by science, and presenting them in a way which persuades
the scientifically illiterate that this is the case.
> Or do you really think that all theists think like
> Gabriel, the arch-creationist? There is, unfortunately for you, a
> very large number of people who believe in God, and who think that it
> is inherently logical to believe in a Creator and equally illogical to
> believe that life "just happened" by itself, over millions of years,
> without a Creator behind it.
However, those who are honest do not pretend that such a belief is a
proposition which can be tested using the tools of science.
Where there *is* a consensus is that science can only address the
question of how life originated using the tools of science.
We can ignore those "probability statistics" because they represent a
scenario which no scientist has ever proposed. They are meaningless.
We have no solid scientific theory of how life originated. How on
earth can anyone attach probability to unknown conditions?
>
> Saying "of course we have clues..." does not make it true.
Quite so. However, they provide the basis on which hypotheses can be
formulated and which can be tested by the acquisition of more data.
> Let me
> tell you what we do have. We have, as I mentioned, a great deal of
> information on many organic chemical reactions which, because they are
> organic, are pertinent to life, and the existence and maintenance of
> life. None of them, including the ones that attempt to inject large
> amounts of external energy or radiation into the process, are able to
> do more than generate more amounts of the same or slightly more
> complex non-living chemicals.
So, as someone who has made a point of their qualifications in the
field, how do you distinguish between "living" and "non-living"
chemicals?
> There is no, I repeat, no chemical
> reactions identified which produce anything more complex than a few
> amino-acid chains and so far, no one is in any danger of confusing
> chains of amino acids with life. No one is close to explaining the
> self-assembly of the first DNA chain. No one is close to explaining
> how DNA, once it existed, became a self-replicating phenomenon, or how
> it got into a cell, or how the cell first got created.
So are you suggesting that we abandon scientific investigation because
it is clear that God did it?
>
> So would you mind elaborating on just what, in my post, is rubbish,
> and exactly why that is so? With, if possible, a post that actually
> contains some facts, and not these grand sweeping unsubstantiated
> claims of yours pertaining to vague plausible ideas? Pony up if
> you've got some science, my friend, I'd like to read it.
>
>
>
> > >All we have is a motley collection of data demonstrating the
> > >properties of various organic molecules under certain conditions, but
> > >none have been able to generate anything remotely close to what we
> > >would call life, so there is nothing yet that we are hard-pressed to
> > >distinguish from plain chemical reactions.
>
> > We have only had a few decades. It may have taken the Earth half a
> > billion years to do it.
>
> Oh, so what you are saying is that we do NOT have the answer, and we
> need some time. Well, that is not what you claimed up there in the
> above. It is, however, what I've been telling you all along....that
> we have not got the answer to how life started, and we are not racing
> down the homestretch to the finish line, either. We are barely out
> the gate, and have no idea where the finish line is, or in what
> direction we should be running. We are whistling in the dark when it
> comes to trying to reproduce or reverse-engineer life, and the current
> efforts in science to this end are being done in a somewhat gunshot
> approach of trying to fool around with or manipulate every pertinent
> organic molecule known to mankind in the hopes of coming up with the
> solution. So far, no cigar.
>
So are you suggesting that we abandon scientific investigation and
simply conclude that God did it?
>
>
> > >Your information is
> > >inaccurate. Although actually, I note that you didn't actually give
> > >any information, just your opinion, or at best, mistaken
> > >interpretation.
>
> > In most cases I charge for opinions.
>
> It's probably a good thing that you didn't try to charge me for this
> one.
>
>
>
> > >And also, for the record, the first cell was not created by
> > >evolution. This is one of the biggest myths about evolution heartily
> > >espoused and advocated by atheists. Whatever chemical processes may
> > >have taken place in order to produce the first cell, DNA was not part
> > >of the process,
>
> > Did I say it was?
>
> You imply it the minute you use the word evolution.
Why?
He specifically said that it was *not* "created by evolution".
> Unless, of
> course, you are one of those sneaky people who changes the meaning of
> evolution for convenience. If you mean the generic evolution of
> something developing in time, it is dishonest of you to use it in the
> context which implies natural selection operating upon inheritable
> characteristics.
He specifically said that he *wasn't* referring to evolution!
>
>
>
> > >it was part of what was being made. And there is no
> > >evolution without DNA,
>
> > Again, rubbish. You do seem to have some very strange ideas.
>
> Again what an astoundingly logical response. I'm very sorry for you
> that the most basic definition of evolution by natural selection
> demands genetic material to work upon.
No, it doesn't. It requires changes which can be inherited. All living
organisms use DNA, but that does not mean that some precursor may have
used a different system for inheritance.
> But without DNA, there is no
> random mutation.
Why not?
> RNA is the same damn stuff, made out of pretty much
> the same damn chemicals, and working within the same damn system.
Excuse me? Are you, as someone who has just made a point of claiming
qualifications in the field, saying that RNA is the same as DNA?
> It
> is trivial to bring it up as if it were significantly different stuff
> from a different mechanism of life. It is part and parcel of
> genetically transmissible material. The point is there is no
> evolution without it. DNA, RNA and messenger RNA. All of it. And
> with no cell within which to contain it, and divide into two cells
> using it, there is not even a basic concept of "transmissibility" or
> "inheritance". There are no generations of anything upon which
> natural selection can operate. This is the most basic element of the
> mechanism of evolution, and if you do not know this, you shouldn't
> even be having this conversation. The first cell had to come into
> existence without the benefit of any of these mechanisms. It had to
> assemble itself using totally different chemical processes that have
> nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with natural selection, random
> mutation, or genetic variability.
So are you claiming that we should abandon the scientific
investigation of abiogenesis in favour of "God did it"?
RF
tension_on_the_wire
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:32:13 -0800 (PST), tension_on_the_wire>
> <tension_at_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 28, 5:04 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:40:38 -0800 (PST), DJT
> : >: > <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:>
> : >
> : > : On Nov 14, 4:26 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:: > "AC" wrote in messagenews:slrnghopca....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
> : >
> : > : way to determine which story is correct,
> : >
> : > Not true. It's beyond logical that there's an intelligent
> : > designer. No one in their right mind would believe a building
> : > would just "happen", no matter how many billions of years you
> : > want to tack onto the feat. Why? Because it has complexity. Then
> : > take a look at a single cell - it is more complex than the entire
> : > universe. Then look at the trillions of cells in the human body.
> : > It makes a billion buildings look like one spec of sand. And yet,
> : > people will now defy their own God-given logic and act like they
> : > believe something infinitely more complex than a building "just
> : > happened". The fish to man version of evolution defies logic.
> :
> : What exact logic is it which is being defied?
>
> That fish can "learn", over generations, to breath air,
> walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write every language
> known to man. This defies logic. And even science can repeatedly
> show, test and verify that fish only ever produce, over
> generations, more fish.
And YOU!!!!
Nowhere in science is it claimed that evolution has anything to do
with learning, or any type of neuronal synaptic processes.
Nowhere in science is it claimed that fish learn anything over
generations.
Of course your statements defy logic, because you have chosen to
represent science as claiming things that it does not.
I hope you don't take the little fish with legs signs on the cars so
seriously that this is what you think.
You deny yourself an opportunity to understand what is really being
said and understood. If you are, indeed, interested in what is really
being claimed by science, that is. Of course, if you are more
interested in being a spin doctor and painting science to claim things
it does not in order to support your own determination that nothing
will get in the way of your faith, then we are at a standstill.
You seem to have a slightly impaired sense of time if you think that
by the time a species has developed lungs, or two legs, or brains that
can read, that they would be fish that have "learned" to do those
things. You demonstrate a total lack of understanding of evolution if
this is what you think.
Science can demonstrate that, over an extremely limited (in terms of
geological time) number of generations, fish will only produce more
fish. This is, however, only a very short term observation. You are
right about that, as far as it goes. What science has also
demonstrated, however, is that given enough time, and an unlimited
number of generations, enough differences will creep in that the
"fish" in certain environments and under certain conditions, will no
longer resemble what they looked like all those trillions of
generations ago and that there is a point when they will be so
different, they can no longer reproduce or procreate with any other
fish which still resemble fish. This will then be the day to change
the name of that species from fish to frogs,if it is legs and lungs,
and no tail which happened.
So please explain to me, I ask again, why your statements about the
genetic tendency for fish to produce more fish in the shortterm is in
logical defiance of the genetic tendencies which are demonstrated in
the longterm by all species driven by DNA.
>
> : You seem to be arguing
> : that complexity demands a designer. I can go along with that. In
> : fact, I heartily believe it.
>
> Great - then you believe in a common designer. The common
> designer we believe in is God.
Don't mistake me for an atheist. I already believe in God, or did you
not gather that from any of my posts so far?
>
> : What, in the fish-to-man "version" of
> : evolution, defies that concept?
>
> That what they believe has never been observed, is not
> testable and is not verifiable. No one has ever been able to show
> a test or observation of, for example, populations of rats
> producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
> rats at all. Until they show such an observation and/or test case
> happening, what they claim remains unobservable, untestable and
> unverifiable - ergo a belief, not science.
Sorry, but you have not answered my question. What, in the fish-to-
man version of evolution defies the concept of complexity of life
demanding a Creator? It does not. It is the most complex large-scale
biological system discovered so far, and begs a Creator to explain the
existence of the evolutionary system in the first place. Your
statment does not address complexity of life, but a completely
different point which I have already answered above by explaining your
disorientation to the timescales involved.
Just how many generations would you like to demand from science, in
which to produce animals that are clearly no longer rats? The
observation or test case (which you so unreasonably demand as the only
proof you will accept) will require millions of years to produce,
unless you have some secret way of speeding up the timescale of the
generations required to observe the effect in action. So, perhaps the
act of speciation (which means the coming into existence of a new
species, not the remaining of a species as the same species, you have
that directly backward, see below) may not be practically observable
because we don't live long enough to watch it happening, but that does
not mean that it is unverifiable. The entire fossil record and
science of embryology together provide plenty of evidence of the
changes you so conveniently would like to eye-witness your own self
before you will admit defeat in this subject.
I cannot actually count, at this point, the number of times you have
posted the above paragraph, almost as if it were the very Apostolic
Creed itself, without actually thinking about, or demonstrating any
real serious consideration about the responses you have received. And
now you are getting one from a theist, and still you don't seem to get
the point that this argument has absolutely nothing to do with
atheism, but with the large gap of logic you are showing in your
conclusion. Somewhere, once upon a time, you read about how science
relies upon observation, testability and verifiability, and so now,
without really understanding the true meaning of these concepts, you
quote them as if they were father, son and holy ghost. The fact is
that things can be verified retrospectively, just as we are able to in
geology or astronomy, for example, by discovering data that is
testable, reliable and repeatable and using that data to make
unquestionable calculations about what must have happened in the past
for current conditions to exist. Math counts as a critical adjunct to
science, so do not make the naive mistake of dismissing it out of
hand. The fact that light travels at, well, the speed of light, is
testable, reliable, and repeatable and so can be used to prove the
distance between stars, and also can be used to date events at far
distances, even though those phenomena cannot be observed directly (as
they occured in the past), no test-case can be produced, and no direct
verification of the event can be designed other than the calculations
based upon the speed of light.
So your statement "ergo a belief, not science" just doesn't fly, until
you have exhausted all that science has to offer on the subject, and
not just the tiny limited and impossible form of proof that you
demand. It might convince YOU, but it won't convince anyone who
actually knows how science works.
>
> The fish to man version of evolution was created as an
> attempt to deny there is a God, or that God was needed for
> anything. It's precluded with various imagined stories on how
> life was created from lifelessness. Ask anyone who doesn't
> believe in God *why* they don't, and you almost always get the
> answer "well because we know about evolution".
Well, there's an eyeful in that paragraph! First of all, that is NOT
the reason evolution was "created" as you claim. Evolution was not
created or invented by anybody (except God, of course). And as I have
mentioned before, it is a genetic mechanism that CAN be observed in
action, even if we cannot watch long enough for full speciation to
take place, we are certainly able to watch long enough to observe
breed development, which is the first step. So we know the mechanism
is there, and the only thing you can claim has any doubt at all about
it is whether the mechanism is potent enough to take a species all the
way to a new species, if given the requisite amount of time. So you
absolutely cannot claim that evolution was an invented concept, done
for the ulterior motive of denying God. At most, you can claim,
rightly, that atheists who were determined to demonstrate the lack of
necessity of a God jumped all over evolution in an attempt to prove
their point, but this cannot be construed as evidence that therefore
the mechanism itself doesn't exist or was invented, just because of
the opportunists in the world.
As for life from lifelessness, I hope you read my post above to Ye
Olde One which addresses this issue thoroughly. There is absolutely
nothing about evolution, natural selection, or random mutation that
attempts to explain the creation of life from lifelessness, and you
should not let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise. I do agree
with you that there is a plethora of atheists who are not well-
educated in the matter, who think that evolution proves God does not
exist. But you should recognize them for what they are, as ignorant,
uneducated people who didn't bother to research the subject themselves
but took their opinion from a magazine, or the local bar. Really, no
serious, well-read atheist, or honest debater, would claim that; they
know it is a wide open invitation to get trounced in the argument.
Since God is omnipotent, there is absolutely no scientific mechanism
in any sphere of life which can be taken as proof that God doesn't
exist. The more complex the scientific mechanism, the more likely
that it must demand a Creator, as you know.
Even the "God is not necessary" argument does not hold water, because
who ever claimed that God had to be "necessary" in order to exist?
The whole God of the Gaps claim is based on a sneaky argument of
trying to get believers to say "Oh, well, we don't understand how this
came along, therefore we need the concept of God to explain it" so
that they can then jump on you with "Oh, you pathetic loser, so you
believe in a God of the Gaps, Oh my, what ever are you going to do
when Science closes all the gaps and God is no longer necessary?"
They fail to understand that it is not the Gaps that demand a
Creator. It is the Science itself which is filling the gaps with ever
more awesome and complex mechanisms which demands a Creator. You deny
yourself the strongest argument of all for the existence of God by
denying that evolutionary mechanisms exist and function on Earth.
>
> : Is it not the supreme example of
> : complexity, the system itself? Where is it stated that evolution of
> : mankind from other species, by definition, demands NO designer? Or is
> : that an example of YOUR logic? Quite the opposite, I would suggest, if
> : you truly believe that complexity demands intelligence. Or are you
> : fooled into fighting the general consensus of evolutionists (who
> : happen to accept atheism) that the one implies the other? Why is it
> : not possible, as I have asked before, for God to have designed this
> : system?
>
> All the evidence points much more logically to God doing
> exactly what He says He did.
Your evidence is badly mutilated over the last 2000 years. Which
particular version of the many Bibles on Earth do you subscribe to?
And what do you propose to do about all the others? And what evidence
do you have that any version of the Bible was meant to be taken
literally? Especially given the tendencies for Jesus to speak in
metaphors and parables all throughout his ministry? And where is the
original Bible that was never compiled before the highly ulterior-
motivated Nicene Council got their hands on it? I'm sorry but I don't
think much of your evidence. All the evidence I have available
suggests that God is more than capable of creating a self-sustaining
system that only had to be set in place by the Big Bang and all else
followed. What else could be more complex and demand a Designer than
that? A system that requires constant tweaking and interference all
along the way is, by definition, LESS perfect and more faulty than the
one that runs like a well-oiled machine. Perhaps I think more highly
of God than you do. I'm being facetious, and I don't mean to, I know
you are bound and tied by the avowed necessity of faith to deny logic
when the two come into apparent conflict, but wouldn't it be even
better if there WAS no conflict? And it still did not represent a
threat to your faith? Do you really feel that God would play such an
enormous practical joke on the human species by creating all this fake
science hoax just to test your faith? I much prefer to believe in a
God that doesn't play hard-to-get, but rather demonstrates, in all his
Majesty, the scientific wonders of which He has only shown us the
merest glimpse. A God that actually WANTS us to understand His
Creation, that being this mighty and glorious universe.
>
> : And if He did not, then, who DID design the stunningly
> : brilliant means by which all species adapt in order to survive their
> : local environments, even without speciation being necessary?
>
> First of all Speciation is not the fish to man version of
> evolution: it's dogs producing more dogs that adapt if need be to
> their environment, but **remain dogs**.
No, you have that backwards, I'm afraid. Here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciation
Speciation is the process of biological species formation.
> God designed that
> adaptability. However, when they take the leap of "faith" to
> claim that there's no limits to these changes, and that
> populations fish can eventually produce, over generations, human
> beings, it becomes a dishonest attempt to obfuscate the truth,
> let alone the truth of God.
It's not a leap of "faith" when there are sound conclusions being made
from fossil evidence and embryology. It's called a leap of
"intuition". Very different.
Would you mind explaining why God, in His wisdom, chose to make us
look like fish during much of our embryological development? And then
little frogs? Have you ever watched the series of pictures that show
the tail we first have, and how it slowly recedes throughout the
development of the fetus? I, for one, would like an explanation of
why eggs of all species (including humans) are almost
indistinguishable from one another for a significant period of time
after conception?
Well, don't get me started, there are whole books on this subject. If
you could clear youself of the mist put upon you by atheists who want
you to believe that evolution demands atheism, you might find them
very interesting reading indeed. In truth, Gabriel, there really is
nothing about the actual Apostolic Creed and the basic faith in Jesus
that insists that you believe evolution is impossible. The two are
NOT in conflict.
> Romans 1:18-23 KJVR
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
> all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress]
> the truth in unrighteousness;
Exactly. Do not let atheists suppress the truth about evolution from
you.
> 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
> them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Who else but God made it possible for us to intelligently discover the
stuff of which our world is made, including evolution?
> 20 For the invisible things of him from [since] the
> creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
> things that are made, even [including] his eternal power and
> Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Exactly. You also are without excuse to allow them to confuse your
understanding in this matter.
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
> not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
> imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into
> an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
> fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I rest my case.
>
> : And
> : also, if He did not, then what OTHER exact wonderful, miraculous
> : mechanism did God design for the creation of species, and why is this
> : one not good enough for you? Please don't tell me you are one of
> : those mortally offended at the idea of less than stellar ancestors.
>
> Not at all. If God designed us that way, then so be it.
Well good, that's a start.
> But as it turns out, God indicates He created man after His
> image,
And there is a loaded statement if ever there was one. What do you
really think His image is? Do you honestly think that God who created
this universe and all its laws of physics has two arms, two legs, a
set of genitals, and bad hair days? Or is it possible that this
metaphor might refer to something infinitely more profound, such as
the idea that mankind was created in the image of God and that God's
image is in no way to be taken as trivially corporeal. God is NOT
what He looks like. God, and the image of God, must be described by
things other than the grossly physical for that does not describe God
at all. Humankind being created in the image of God means that we,
alone of the species on Earth, were granted the ability to sense long
term time, have memory long enough to learn, and with those tools, to
improve both ourselves and the world around us, to love, to show
mercy, to forgive, to punish wrongdoing, to reward excellence, to give
freely where others would take, to sacrifice for a greater good, to
protect the weak, to care for the ill, to feed the hungry. The
greater qualities of humanity which are unique to our species do not
require instantaneous creation, nor a denial of evolution from less
developed species in order to satisfy the idea that we are closer to
the image of God than any other species, wholly without reference to
phenotypic appearance, or the timescale required to create the most
complex form of life on Earth.
I will now quote yourself back to you: Romans 1: 23 KJVR -----------
> And by the way, take note of the warning against changing the
glory of God into an image made like to corruptible man. It says a
great deal about the current Christian error of thinking that God
creating man in His own image had anything to do with physical
appearance.
> and He created all creatures after their kind in their
> mature form, and the evidence points more logically to that fact
> - homology, DNA similarity, the fossil record and nary an
> intermediate form to debate about. However, evolutionists refuse
> to consider that theory because they refuse to consider the
> possibility of God. Don't believe me? Ask their biggest
> supporter, Dawkins, and read the posts by dozens of other "fish
> to man" evolutionists, and their reaction to the possibility of
> God.
I'm very sorry about Richard Dawkins and all his ilk, but believe me,
he does NOT represent the evolutionists. He represents the atheists.
And he is the classic example of someone who will use any argument,
including that of evolution, to insinuate his idea that if you can
explain something scientifically then you don't need God. Go back to
what I said earlier about the God of the Gaps and the spurious nature
of that argument. Don't assume that all evolutionists agree with his
use of their science. Don't let him or anyone else cheat you out of
one of the best things that God ever created, which was the means by
which you and I are able to have this discussion in the first place.
>
> : That's just like the nouveau-riche embarrassment at their working-
> : class origins, How passe. It's not about who you came from, it's
> : about who you are NOW that counts.
>
> Actually, it's about not ignoring the evidence that more
> logically points to God doing exactly what He says He did, not to
> mention about not ignoring God's Word, acting like it cannot be
> trusted, when evidence continues to show us it can.
There's lots and lots of evidence to show us that the Bible, whichever
of the countless versions that exists, cannot be trusted. First and
foremost, there is absolutely no indicator as to just WHICH Bible is
the right one and where did all the others come from, and if they are
all so wrong and corrupted, contaminated, interpolated, then why is
your particular version so exempt from whatever went wrong with the
others? If you really want to get into the dirt on this, start a new
thread and I will jump right in there with you and wallow in the mud
for a while.
>
> Genesis 1:25-27 KJVR
> 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
> and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon
> the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
> and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
> the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
> earth.
An interesting statement here, about how the image and likeness of God
has nothing to do with physical appearance, and everything to do with
behaviour and dominion over the lesser animals and all the earth
itself. I rest my case. Again.
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
> God created he him; male and female created he them.
And I thank God for this every day while I seek to understand his
Creation by learning as much about His Science as I possibly can.
--tension