Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest H. Wm. Esque
Posted

>

> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message

> news:5a53jvF2m157uU1@mid.individual.net...

> >

> >

> >

> > Aaron Kim

> >

> > http://www.artbulla.com

> >

> > "Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

> > news:nkjq33101k5vk9o5q4dko8dg51nsbipcgp@4ax.com...

> > > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:48:13 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > >>THERMODYNAMICS FALSIFIES EVOLUTION

> > >

> > > No it doesn't, moron.

> > >

> > > There is a huge source of energy that causes entropy to decrease

> > > locally. It's that big yellow thing in the sky.

> > >

> > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped]

> > >

> > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an

> > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"?

> > >

> > > It would have had exactly the same result.

> >

> >

> > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would happen

if

> > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's condition

would

> > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy.

> >

> > The Myth of the "Open System"

> >

> > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the

second

> > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that

"open

> > systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

> >

> > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter

flow

> > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it

> is

> > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of

entropy

> > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living

> > beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate

structures.

> >

> > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has

> an

> > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific

> mechanisms

> > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an

> > engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert

> the

> > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the

> car

> > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

> >

> > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life

> > derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be

> converted

> > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems

> in

> > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive

systems

> of

> > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy

> conversion

> > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a

> > source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

> >

> > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion

> > mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or

> > closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could

> have

> > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed,

the

> > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex

> > energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which

> cannot

> > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on

> > their own.

> >

> > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about

> > order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may

become,

> > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself

is

> > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of

> > proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex and deteriorated

> > structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this

> > organisation at all levels is flawless creation

> >

> > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

> >

> > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution

> > impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts

to

> > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that

> > evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show that the

theory

> > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

> >

> > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and

> > evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from

chaos

> > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order

develops

> > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a

> > decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming

> > "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organize itself." Since then, the

> > concept of the "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular

among

> > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a

> > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic

> solution

> > for the problem of life's origin.

> >

> > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in

> fact

> > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception. The

> > deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts,

> > "ordered" and "organized." 143

> >

> > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach

on

> > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large

and

> > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

> >

> > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the

> > energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the

> sand,

> > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it

> can

> > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear

> > that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a

> castle

> > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the

> > castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a clear

> design

> > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in

a

> > planned manner.

> >

> > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an

> > organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought

> about

> > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an

> object

> > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on

the

> > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hundreds

> of

> > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner

contains

> > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of

> > letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful

> > sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.

> >

> > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind

> > blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in

one

> > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that

which

> > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of

> > dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized

> manner.

> >

> > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the

> > result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can

happen

> > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

> >

> > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through

> natural

> > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as

> > examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of

> concepts,

> > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord from

> > occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies

> > employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are

> > based on this deceptive logic.

> >

> > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger

L.

> > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this

> fact

> > as follows:needed to take us across the

> gap

> > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective

> replicator.

> > This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but

> it

> is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and

> self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for

> granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the

> origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146

>

> All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is

> against empirical science and the origin of living beings can only be

> explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural

> power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from

nothing.

> Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as

> thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation

but

> Creation.

>

I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

of evolution.

You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

against you personally. And usually by those who

didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

conclusions.

 

In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

alt.atheism.

There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>

> Haskell Esque

> >

>

>

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"

<HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

- Refer: <16e%h.32274$qB4.23309@bignews3.bellsouth.net>

>

>>

>> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message

>> news:5a53jvF2m157uU1@mid.individual.net...

 

:

>In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

>disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

>alt.atheism.

>There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>>

>> Haskell Esque

 

Like those liars, who are totally ignorant of basic grade-school

science, such as yourself.

 

--

Guest Budikka666
Posted

On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote in message

> >news:5a53jvF2m157uU1@mid.individual.net...

>

> > > Aaron Kim

>

> > >http://www.artbulla.com

>

> > > "Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> > >news:nkjq33101k5vk9o5q4dko8dg51nsbipcgp@4ax.com...

> > > > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:48:13 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com>

> > > > wrote:

>

> > > >>THERMODYNAMICS FALSIFIES EVOLUTION

>

> > > > No it doesn't, moron.

>

> > > > There is a huge source of energy that causes entropy to decrease

> > > > locally. It's that big yellow thing in the sky.

>

> > > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped]

>

> > > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an

> > > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"?

>

> > > > It would have had exactly the same result.

>

> > > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would happen

> if

> > > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's condition

> would

> > > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy.

>

> > > The Myth of the "Open System"

>

> > > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the

> second

> > > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that

> "open

> > > systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

>

> > > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter

> flow

> > > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it

> > is

> > > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of

> entropy

> > > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living

> > > beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate

> structures.

>

> > > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has

> > an

> > > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific

> > mechanisms

> > > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an

> > > engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert

> > the

> > > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the

> > car

> > > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

>

> > > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life

> > > derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be

> > converted

> > > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems

> > in

> > > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive

> systems

> > of

> > > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy

> > conversion

> > > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a

> > > source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

>

> > > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion

> > > mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or

> > > closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could

> > have

> > > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed,

> the

> > > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex

> > > energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which

> > cannot

> > > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on

> > > their own.

>

> > > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about

> > > order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may

> become,

> > > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself

> is

> > > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of

> > > proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex and deteriorated

> > > structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this

> > > organisation at all levels is flawless creation

>

> > > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

>

> > > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution

> > > impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts

> to

> > > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that

> > > evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show that the

> theory

> > > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

>

> > > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and

> > > evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from

> chaos

> > > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order

> develops

> > > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a

> > > decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming

> > > "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organize itself." Since then, the

> > > concept of the "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular

> among

> > > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a

> > > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic

> > solution

> > > for the problem of life's origin.

>

> > > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in

> > fact

> > > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception. The

> > > deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts,

> > > "ordered" and "organized." 143

>

> > > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach

> on

> > > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large

> and

> > > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

>

> > > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the

> > > energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the

> > sand,

> > > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it

> > can

> > > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear

> > > that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a

> > castle

> > > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the

> > > castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a clear

> > design

> > > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in

> a

> > > planned manner.

>

> > > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an

> > > organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought

> > about

> > > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an

> > object

> > > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on

> the

> > > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hundreds

> > of

> > > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner

> contains

> > > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of

> > > letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful

> > > sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.

>

> > > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind

> > > blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in

> one

> > > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that

> which

> > > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of

> > > dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized

> > manner.

>

> > > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the

> > > result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can

> happen

> > > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

>

> > > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through

> > natural

> > > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as

> > > examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of

> > concepts,

> > > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord from

> > > occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies

> > > employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are

> > > based on this deceptive logic.

>

> > > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger

> L.

> > > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this

> > fact

> > > as follows:needed to take us across the

> > gap

> > > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective

> > replicator.

> > > This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but

> > it

>

> > is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and

> > self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for

> > granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the

> > origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146

> >

> > All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is

> > against empirical science and the origin of living beings can only be

> > explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural

> > power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from

> nothing.

> > Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as

> > thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation

> but

> > Creation.

> >

> I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

> discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

> of evolution.

> You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

> civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

> assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

> against you personally. And usually by those who

> didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

> conclusions.

>

> In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

> disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

> alt.atheism.

> There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>

>

>

> > Haskell Esque

 

I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

the Theory of Evolution?

 

Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

the Theory of Evolution?

 

Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

 

Budikka

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On 6 May 2007 02:59:44 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>

wrote:

- Refer: <1178445584.494705.53560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>

>On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

 

:

>> > Haskell Esque

>

>I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

>Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

>positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

>the Theory of Evolution?

>

>Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

>the Theory of Evolution?

>

>Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

 

Because he is a clueless, uneducated, ignorant moron.

(As is the cretin that he is supporting, in a theistic knee jerk

reaction.)

I am still waiting for Haskell to upgrade my understanding of quantum

physics.

I think that I shall be waiting for at least two eternities.

The bozo has no idea of reality whatsoever.

 

Good luck in your futile quest to try and extract some reason from

this annoying imbecile.

 

--

Guest John Baker
Posted

On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"

<HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

 

> >

>I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

>discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

>of evolution.

>You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

>civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

>assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

>against you personally. And usually by those who

>didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

>conclusions.

 

Perhaps we're simply fed up with clueless idiots who insist on telling

us why they're right and all the scientists in the world are wrong.

>

>In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

>disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

>alt.atheism.

>There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>>

>> Haskell Esque

>> >

>>

>>

>

Guest Christopher A.Lee
Posted

On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:14:43 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>

wrote:

>On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"

><HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>

>> >

>>I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

>>discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

>>of evolution.

 

Why lie about reality being a sacred cow? Especially when it has

nothing to do with atheism or vice versa?

 

They have no excuse.

 

All it does is tell us that they are stupid and dishonest.

 

Which we would never have known if they had kept it to themselves.

 

So why don't they?

>>You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

>>civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

>>assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

>>against you personally. And usually by those who

>>didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

>>conclusions.

 

These are blatant falsehoods. Personal lies about us, to us.

 

Does the moron honestly imagine we needed to read past the opening?

 

Is hearing the same old lies ever going to convince anybody?

 

Or their self-imposed ignorance?

 

And are their personal lies about us, to us going to convince us that

anything they have to say will be true?

>Perhaps we're simply fed up with clueless idiots who insist on telling

>us why they're right and all the scientists in the world are wrong.

 

Nobody forces them to in-our-face their stupidity, rudeness and

dishonesty.

 

Yet they turn viciously nasty, whining hypocrites when they're called

for what they have shown themselves.

>>In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

>>disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

>>alt.atheism.

>>There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>>>

>>> Haskell Esque

>>> >

>>>

>>>

>>

Guest ekrubmeg
Posted

On May 6, 2:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wro

>

> Budikka

 

You want "evidence" refuting the "poof" theory? Talk to Elvis, there

is your proof.

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

[snips]

 

On Sun, 06 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, H. Wm. Esque wrote:

> I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

> discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

> of evolution.

 

Honesty and rationality are good traits. However, they manifestly do not

apply to anyone thinking evolution is any sort of "sacred cow" to anyone

but some seriously twisted fundies.

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

[snips]

 

On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:14:43 -0400, John Baker wrote:

> On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"

> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>

>> >

>>I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

>>discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

>>of evolution.

>>You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

>>civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

>>assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

>>against you personally. And usually by those who

>>didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

>>conclusions.

>

> Perhaps we're simply fed up with clueless idiots who insist on telling

> us why they're right and all the scientists in the world are wrong.

 

Not "all". Some simply don't get it, some simply don't care - wrong field

- and some, for reasons as yet unclear, actually jump on the creationist

bandwagon.

 

We can't really say "all scientists"... just all of those who work in

relevant fields and have not sold themselves into intellectual bankruptcy.

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Sun, 06 May 2007 12:17:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-0605071217590001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <1178445584.494705.53560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

>

[snip]

>>

>> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

>> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

>> positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

>> the Theory of Evolution?

>>

>> Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

>> the Theory of Evolution?

>>

>> Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

>>

>> Budikka

>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

>might be icr.com or icr.org

 

I have, many times.

>It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

>of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

>should visit that site.

 

Evolution is about changes in life over time, not the origin of life.

That said, the ICR gets both wrong. Read their site yourself, it is a

Christian apologetic organization, not science.

>About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??)

 

Who has been convicted of fraud and admits he made stuff up.

>wrote a best

>selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

>millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

>of huge space ships. They bought with them thousands of plants and

>animals. They also left behind about a hundred (or more) people from that

>planet--various races. He had lots evidence such as the pyramids in Egypt,

>cave drawings of space ships and Stone Henge. The name of that book was

>"In Search of Ancient Astranauts"

 

And that is not only nonsense it is nonsense that contradicts both

science and the ICR.

>Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

>life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

 

Actually Alien Astronauts don't say a thing about the origin of

life. We have evidence for life here for billions of years so it long

pre-dates VonD's made up astronauts. And I bet you don't know any more

about either evolution or origin of life research than the phrase

"primordial soup". Would you care to discuss the relative importance

of clay as a replicative substrate?

>You can

>google those terms. I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

>came to be and he did not know.

 

Wow, you asked one person a question and they didn't know. Where did

the aliens come from? How did they originate? Did they use DNA? RNA?

>I asked him how the first living cell came

>to be and he did not know.

 

We know lots more than we did 50 years ago. How many thousands of

words are you willing to read on the subject? I can provide references

if you want actual answers.

>If you think life came to be from nothing,

 

I don't. I think it came from stuff, stuff similar to life but

somewhat different. The ICR say it came from nothing. VonD does not

talk about the origin of life.

> I

>challenge you to prove it.

 

Can you "prove" anything at all of your claims? Meanwhile read this:

 

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous

Experiment: Scientific American

"Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called

nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were

also turning the water acidic

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1178445584.494705.53560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

> On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote in message

> > >news:5a53jvF2m157uU1@mid.individual.net...

> >

> > > > Aaron Kim

> >

> > > >http://www.artbulla.com

> >

> > > > "Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> > > >news:nkjq33101k5vk9o5q4dko8dg51nsbipcgp@4ax.com...

> > > > > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:48:13 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com>

> > > > > wrote:

> >

> > > > >>THERMODYNAMICS FALSIFIES EVOLUTION

> >

> > > > > No it doesn't, moron.

> >

> > > > > There is a huge source of energy that causes entropy to decrease

> > > > > locally. It's that big yellow thing in the sky.

> >

> > > > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped]

> >

> > > > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an

> > > > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"?

> >

> > > > > It would have had exactly the same result.

> >

> > > > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would happen

> > if

> > > > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's condition

> > would

> > > > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy.

> >

> > > > The Myth of the "Open System"

> >

> > > > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the

> > second

> > > > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that

> > "open

> > > > systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

> >

> > > > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter

> > flow

> > > > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it

> > > is

> > > > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of

> > entropy

> > > > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living

> > > > beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate

> > structures.

> >

> > > > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has

> > > an

> > > > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific

> > > mechanisms

> > > > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an

> > > > engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert

> > > the

> > > > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the

> > > car

> > > > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

> >

> > > > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life

> > > > derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be

> > > converted

> > > > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems

> > > in

> > > > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive

> > systems

> > > of

> > > > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy

> > > conversion

> > > > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a

> > > > source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

> >

> > > > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion

> > > > mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or

> > > > closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could

> > > have

> > > > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed,

> > the

> > > > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex

> > > > energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which

> > > cannot

> > > > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on

> > > > their own.

> >

> > > > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about

> > > > order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may

> > become,

> > > > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself

> > is

> > > > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of

> > > > proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex and deteriorated

> > > > structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this

> > > > organisation at all levels is flawless creation

> >

> > > > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

> >

> > > > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution

> > > > impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts

> > to

> > > > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that

> > > > evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show that the

> > theory

> > > > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

> >

> > > > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and

> > > > evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from

> > chaos

> > > > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order

> > develops

> > > > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a

> > > > decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming

> > > > "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organize itself." Since then, the

> > > > concept of the "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular

> > among

> > > > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a

> > > > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic

> > > solution

> > > > for the problem of life's origin.

> >

> > > > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in

> > > fact

> > > > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception. The

> > > > deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts,

> > > > "ordered" and "organized." 143

> >

> > > > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach

> > on

> > > > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large

> > and

> > > > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

> >

> > > > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the

> > > > energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the

> > > sand,

> > > > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it

> > > can

> > > > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear

> > > > that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a

> > > castle

> > > > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the

> > > > castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a clear

> > > design

> > > > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in

> > a

> > > > planned manner.

> >

> > > > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an

> > > > organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought

> > > about

> > > > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an

> > > object

> > > > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on

> > the

> > > > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hundreds

> > > of

> > > > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner

> > contains

> > > > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of

> > > > letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful

> > > > sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.

> >

> > > > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind

> > > > blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in

> > one

> > > > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that

> > which

> > > > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of

> > > > dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized

> > > manner.

> >

> > > > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the

> > > > result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can

> > happen

> > > > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

> >

> > > > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through

> > > natural

> > > > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as

> > > > examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of

> > > concepts,

> > > > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord from

> > > > occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies

> > > > employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are

> > > > based on this deceptive logic.

> >

> > > > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger

> > L.

> > > > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this

> > > fact

> > > > as follows:needed to take us across the

> > > gap

> > > > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective

> > > replicator.

> > > > This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but

> > > it

> >

> > > is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and

> > > self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for

> > > granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the

> > > origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146

> > >

> > > All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is

> > > against empirical science and the origin of living beings can only be

> > > explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural

> > > power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from

> > nothing.

> > > Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as

> > > thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation

> > but

> > > Creation.

> > >

> > I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

> > discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

> > of evolution.

> > You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

> > civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

> > assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

> > against you personally. And usually by those who

> > didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

> > conclusions.

> >

> > In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

> > disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

> > alt.atheism.

> > There are many others to whom this does not apply.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Haskell Esque

>

> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

> positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

> the Theory of Evolution?

>

> Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

> the Theory of Evolution?

>

> Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

>

> Budikka

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

might be icr.com or icr.org

 

It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

should visit that site.

 

About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??) wrote a best

selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

of huge space ships. They bought with them thousands of plants and

animals. They also left behind about a hundred (or more) people from that

planet--various races. He had lots evidence such as the pyramids in Egypt,

cave drawings of space ships and Stone Henge. The name of that book was

"In Search of Ancient Astranauts"

 

Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond. You can

google those terms. I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

came to be and he did not know. I asked him how the first living cell came

to be and he did not know. If you think life came to be from nothing, I

challenge you to prove it. Some scientists have tried to create life from

nothing and all of their experiments failed or were later proved to be

failures. One scientist believe that house flys evolved from dead meat.

His proof was house flys coming out of dead meat and flying away--he even

had pictures that were published in books. His theory was published in

several high school biology books. Several years later, another scientist

proved that those flys did not evolve from meat but instead that adult

female house flys had laid their eggs in the dead meat. I believe his

theory was called "spontaneous generation [of life]". Life cannot evolve

from nothing. Believe it or not, many modern day evolutionists have

serious problems with many of the various aspects of evolution theory. I

was told by several evolutionists that evolutionists no longer concern

themselves with how life came to be. Of course, we both know why that is

true. The reason is that evolutionists don't know how life came to be and

that's the reason they don't concern themselves with trying to figure it

out. If they don't know how life came to be--that means many of the

aspects of the theory are false. Of course, some of the aspects of

evolution theory are correct and can be proved in the laboratory. The

advocates of creation science accept those aspects of evolution theory

that can be proved in a laboratory. So do I.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guest Anna R., D.Min.
Posted

Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <lv7s3310feeahv5s1umovji23kcllan9jd@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 May 2007 12:17:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0605071217590001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> >In article <1178445584.494705.53560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> >Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

> >

> [snip]

> >>

> >> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

> >> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

> >> positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

> >> the Theory of Evolution?

> >>

> >> Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

> >> the Theory of Evolution?

> >>

> >> Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

> >>

> >> Budikka

> >

> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> >

> >You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

> >might be icr.com or icr.org

>

> I have, many times.

>

> >It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

> >of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

> >should visit that site.

>

> Evolution is about changes in life over time, not the origin of life.

> That said, the ICR gets both wrong. Read their site yourself, it is a

> Christian apologetic organization, not science.

>

> >About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??)

>

> Who has been convicted of fraud and admits he made stuff up.

>

> >wrote a best

> >selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

> >millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

> >of huge space ships. They bought with them thousands of plants and

> >animals. They also left behind about a hundred (or more) people from that

> >planet--various races. He had lots evidence such as the pyramids in Egypt,

> >cave drawings of space ships and Stone Henge. The name of that book was

> >"In Search of Ancient Astranauts"

>

> And that is not only nonsense it is nonsense that contradicts both

> science and the ICR.

>

> >Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

> >life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

>

> Actually Alien Astronauts don't say a thing about the origin of

> life. We have evidence for life here for billions of years so it long

> pre-dates VonD's made up astronauts. And I bet you don't know any more

> about either evolution or origin of life research than the phrase

> "primordial soup". Would you care to discuss the relative importance

> of clay as a replicative substrate?

>

> >You can

> >google those terms. I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

> >came to be and he did not know.

>

> Wow, you asked one person a question and they didn't know. Where did

> the aliens come from? How did they originate? Did they use DNA? RNA?

>

> >I asked him how the first living cell came

> >to be and he did not know.

>

> We know lots more than we did 50 years ago. How many thousands of

> words are you willing to read on the subject? I can provide references

> if you want actual answers.

>

> >If you think life came to be from nothing,

>

> I don't. I think it came from stuff, stuff similar to life but

> somewhat different. The ICR say it came from nothing. VonD does not

> talk about the origin of life.

>

> > I

> >challenge you to prove it.

>

> Can you "prove" anything at all of your claims? Meanwhile read this:

>

> Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous

> Experiment: Scientific American

> "Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called

> nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were

> also turning the water acidic

Guest cactus
Posted

Anna R., D.Min. wrote:

> Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

> is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

>

Is this the result of your education at Liberty U?

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Sun, 6 May 2007 01:56:08 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque"

<HEsque@bellsouth.net> in

<16e%h.32274$qB4.23309@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:

 

[snip]

>I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

>discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

>of evolution.

>You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

>civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

>assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

>against you personally. And usually by those who

>didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

>conclusions.

 

I am interested, what do you call the fallacies employed in the above

paragraphs? It is certainly not rational or civil to start attacking

people before they have had a chance to respond.

>In fairness,

 

Somehow I doubt that.

>I should add that this applies to certain

>disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

>alt.atheism.

>There are many others to whom this does not apply.

 

--

Matt Silberstein

 

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

 

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

 

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min."

<annaroberts1@yahoo.com> in

<1178482176.288791.80400@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

>is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

 

How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the

change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example

of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in

His awesome power and authority" alternative.

 

Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using

evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you

provide your "God" prediction?

 

--

Matt Silberstein

 

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

 

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

 

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, "Anna R., D.Min."

<annaroberts1@yahoo.com> wrote:

- Refer: <1178482176.288791.80400@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

>Yes Bob in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

>is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

 

The arch nutcase Daniel Min has found a girlfirend?

I don't believe it!

Get out Anna, before it's too late.

 

--

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com
Posted

On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min."

> <annarober...@yahoo.com> in

>

> <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:

> >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

> >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

 

You mean the FAITH of Evolution?

Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say

something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the

> change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example

> of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in

> His awesome power and authority" alternative.

>

> Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using

> evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you

> provide your "God" prediction?

>

> --

> Matt Silberstein

>

> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

>

> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

>

> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Sun, 06 May 2007 14:09:08 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-0605071409080001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <lv7s3310feeahv5s1umovji23kcllan9jd@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 06 May 2007 12:17:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0605071217590001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> >In article <1178445584.494705.53560@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>> >Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

>> >

>> [snip]

>> >>

>> >> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the

>> >> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What

>> >> positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to

>> >> the Theory of Evolution?

>> >>

>> >> Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns

>> >> the Theory of Evolution?

>> >>

>> >> Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support?

>> >>

>> >> Budikka

>> >

>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> >

>> >You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

>> >might be icr.com or icr.org

>>

>> I have, many times.

>>

>> >It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

>> >of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

>> >should visit that site.

>>

>> Evolution is about changes in life over time, not the origin of life.

>> That said, the ICR gets both wrong. Read their site yourself, it is a

>> Christian apologetic organization, not science.

>>

>> >About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??)

>>

>> Who has been convicted of fraud and admits he made stuff up.

>>

>> >wrote a best

>> >selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

>> >millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

>> >of huge space ships. They bought with them thousands of plants and

>> >animals. They also left behind about a hundred (or more) people from that

>> >planet--various races. He had lots evidence such as the pyramids in Egypt,

>> >cave drawings of space ships and Stone Henge. The name of that book was

>> >"In Search of Ancient Astranauts"

>>

>> And that is not only nonsense it is nonsense that contradicts both

>> science and the ICR.

>>

>> >Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

>> >life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

>>

>> Actually Alien Astronauts don't say a thing about the origin of

>> life. We have evidence for life here for billions of years so it long

>> pre-dates VonD's made up astronauts. And I bet you don't know any more

>> about either evolution or origin of life research than the phrase

>> "primordial soup". Would you care to discuss the relative importance

>> of clay as a replicative substrate?

>>

>> >You can

>> >google those terms. I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

>> >came to be and he did not know.

>>

>> Wow, you asked one person a question and they didn't know. Where did

>> the aliens come from? How did they originate? Did they use DNA? RNA?

>>

>> >I asked him how the first living cell came

>> >to be and he did not know.

>>

>> We know lots more than we did 50 years ago. How many thousands of

>> words are you willing to read on the subject? I can provide references

>> if you want actual answers.

>>

>> >If you think life came to be from nothing,

>>

>> I don't. I think it came from stuff, stuff similar to life but

>> somewhat different. The ICR say it came from nothing. VonD does not

>> talk about the origin of life.

>>

>> > I

>> >challenge you to prove it.

>>

>> Can you "prove" anything at all of your claims? Meanwhile read this:

>>

>> Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous

>> Experiment: Scientific American

>> "Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called

>> nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were

>> also turning the water acidic

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On 6 May 2007 16:04:50 -0700, in alt.atheism , Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

in <1178492690.858224.201320@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min."

>> <annarober...@yahoo.com> in

>>

>> <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

>> >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

>

>You mean the FAITH of Evolution?

 

I offered a prediction below. How is that faith?

>Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say

>something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism

>

>>

>> How is that an alternative? Evolution is a predictive model of the

>> change in populations of living things over time. Here is an example

>> of an evolutionary prediction, perhaps you can provide the " God in

>> His awesome power and authority" alternative.

>>

>> Suppose we have a small island near a large body of land. Using

>> evolution I can predict things about the biota on that island. Can you

>> provide your "God" prediction?

 

 

--

Matt Silberstein

 

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

 

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

 

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Guest Budikka666
Posted

On May 6, 12:25 pm, ekrubmeg <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 6, 2:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wro

>

>

>

> > Budikka

>

> You want "evidence" refuting the "poof" theory? Talk to Elvis, there

> is your proof.

 

Yeah, I'd love to see their evidence. They never seem to be able to

supply any, though. I wonder why that is?

 

Budikka

Guest Budikka666
Posted

On May 6, 6:04 pm, Tohu.B...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein

>

> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min."

> > <annarober...@yahoo.com> in

>

> > <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:

> > >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

> > >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

>

> You mean the FAITH of Evolution?

> Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say

> something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism

 

I'll be happy to debate your alternative if you can support it, as

I've repeatedly requested, with positive science.

 

But you can't, can you? You're quite plainly and simply lying, aren't

you?

 

Budikka

Guest Budikka666
Posted

On May 6, 3:09 pm, "Anna R., D.Min." <annarober...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

> is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

 

Is "D.min" (D-) your score in your science class?

 

Now which part of "positive scientific evidence" is it that's

evidently beyond your reading grade? That's what I asked for. Do you

seriously think that your affirmation of your faith overturns 150

years of solid science supporting the Theory of Evolution - solid

multi-disciplinary science which has come from people of all nations

and all faiths?

 

But if you'd rather present your positive evidence for this god of

yours, I'll be happy to debate that, instead.

 

I'm waiting.

 

Budikka

Guest Jason
Posted

Matt,

When people eat meat, their bodies break down the meat and the end result

is amino acids. They are the cheif components of proteins. I know enough

to know that life does NOT evolve from non-life. Amino acids are NOT

living cells. You seem to believe that life could evolve from amino acids

but before I could believe it, you would have to provide evidence that it

can happen. It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life

evolved from non-life. It must be because of faith because there is no

evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life

can evolve from non-life. I believe that God created the earth and created

Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants. God even made sure that the

Earth was the exact distance from the sun so that people, plants and

animals could live their lives. We have found no evidence of life on other

planets or even on the moon. You asked for evidence that fossils provide

proof that God created life on this planet. I don't need to provide that

proof. At the ICR website, there is at least one book for sale that has

that evidence. I read the book about 15 years ago but no longer have a

copy of it. If you type "fossils" into the ICR search engine, you could

find articles about fossil evidence. Don't expect me to repeat in a post

everything that is written in that book that I mentioned.

Have a happy weekend,

jason

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Sun, 06 May 2007 18:35:48 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-0605071835480001@66-52-22-105.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

 

 

Please learn to quote the material you want to respond to.

>Matt,

>When people eat meat, their bodies break down the meat and the end result

>is amino acids. They are the cheif components of proteins. I know enough

>to know that life does NOT evolve from non-life.

 

You don't know enough to know what "evolve" means. I have told you

several times.

>Amino acids are NOT

>living cells.

 

They are a major component. And we know that RNA can self-catalyze. Do

you understand the significance of that.

>You seem to believe that life could evolve from amino acids

 

Nope, but I know that amino acids are an important precursor and I

know how those can form under the conditions of the early Earth.

>but before I could believe it, you would have to provide evidence that it

>can happen.

 

What evidence have you produce for anything?

>It appears to me that many evolutionists have FAITH that life

>evolved from non-life.

 

I gave you a reference to an article discussing an experiment that

produced actual evidence. Do you want more and are you willing to read

the material?

>It must be because of faith because there is no

>evidence that life can evolve from non-life. I do not believe that life

>can evolve from non-life.

 

So you don't believe it. You have announced that you don't know

anything about the science, you don't know about the research, you

don't even know enough to know that Von D did not discuss the origin

of life. Your belief does not have much persuasive power.

>I believe that God created the earth and created

>Adam, Eve, lots of animals and lots of plants.

 

How nice for you.

>God even made sure that the

>Earth was the exact distance from the sun so that people, plants and

>animals could live their lives.

 

You do know that the distance from the Earth to the Sun varies, don't

you?

>We have found no evidence of life on other

>planets or even on the moon.

 

So? What if we did?

>You asked for evidence that fossils provide

>proof that God created life on this planet. I don't need to provide that

>proof.

 

And, yet, you demand proof from others. You offer no evidence and

demand that others provide you with evidence. You scream about the

mote in the eye of others and ignore your beam.

>At the ICR website, there is at least one book for sale that has

>that evidence.

 

Oh, wow, one book. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org. You will find scores of

articles. Every one of those articles has references to peer reviewed

scientific research. They are not trying to take your money, so they

don't have any books for sale. But there are reading lists so you can

go to the library if you want.

>I read the book about 15 years ago but no longer have a

>copy of it. If you type "fossils" into the ICR search engine, you could

>find articles about fossil evidence.

 

Again, they are not a science organization, they are a Christian

evangelical group. Read http://icr.org/home/faq/, they start with

their conclusions and work from there.

>Don't expect me to repeat in a post

>everything that is written in that book that I mentioned.

 

I don't expect you to produce anything. I think you are trolling, but

I don't care.

 

 

--

Matt Silberstein

 

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

 

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

 

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...